


I.': 



:■ 






{■: 







1<* 






r.O^ 



^ ^ : 








■'%. .^ 



o 

^-.-^y : 














> >^ c 






fe; 



i 



THE / //WW-^/-£^t^- 




DIFFICUL.TIES 



ROMANISM. 



BY 

GEORGE STANLEY FABER, B. D. 

BECTOR OP LONG-NEWTON, 

AUTHOR OF "THE DIFFICULTIES OF INFIDELITY." 



'Peraeque adversus universas heereses jam hinc prsejudicatum sit: id esse 
Terum, quodcunque primum ; id esse adulterum, quodcunque posterius." 

TertulL adv, Prax. § ii, Oper. p. 405. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

TOWAR &L HOGAN ^255, MARKET STREET. 






Gift 

Mrs. Henn«n Jennins* 
April 26, l*» 



TO 

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 

NICHOLAS, LORD BEXLEY, 

AS 

A TOKEN OF SINCERE RESPECT BOTH FOR HIS PITBIIC 
SERVICES AND HIS PRIVATE VIRTUES, 

THIS MANUAL 

IS INSCRIBED, 

BT HIS OBLIGED AND OBEDIENT HUMBLE SERVANT, 

THE AUTHOR. 



PREFACE. 



At various intervals, during the course of some 
years past, my attention has been turned to that part 
of the Latin controversy, which respects the evidence 
afforded by the early ecclesiastical writers. 

I. It appeared to me, that, on all the great leading 
points of divinity, those who conversed with the f 
apostles, and those who lived nearest to the times of I x 
the apostles, must best have known the mind of the ^ 
apostles. Whence it seemed to follow, that, if the . 
Latin church really possessed that immutability of 
character which is so constantly claimed on her behalf, 
all those various doctrines and practices, which many 
persons are wont to deem corruptions of the truth, 
must have subsisted from the apostolic age itself, and 
might therefore be clearly discovered in the productions 
of all the early ecclesiastics. 

Such a testimony as this in favour of the Roman 
system of theology, should it actually exist, would be 
so powerful, that it is difficult to conceive how it could 
be reasonably set aside : for, if all the ancient writers, 
with one voice, up to the very time of the apostles, 
taught and maintained, as the familiar and acknow- 
ledged doctrines and practices of the primitive catholic 

church, those identical doctrines and practices which 

a2 



I. 



VI PREFACE. 

are now taught and mamtained by the church of Rome ; 
I see not how we can avoid the inference, that those 
doctrines and practices rest ultimately upon the in- 
spired authority of the apostles themselves. 

II. It is obvious, that, in collecting evidence of this 
description, we require, as a point indispensably neces- 
sary to constitute its validity, both the unbroken con- 
tinuity of the chain of witnesses^ and the strict mutual 
harmony of the witnesses themselves. 

Unless the chain of witnesses extend to the apostolic 
age, the evidence is incomplete : and, since its whole 
strength depends upon its completeness, if incomplete, 
it is altogether worthless. 

To discover any peculiar doctrine or practice of the 
Latin church, in the works (we will say) of a writer of 
{he fourth century, will be of no avail, unless the same 
doctrine and practice be also recognised, in orderly 
succession, by a train of yet earlier writers from the 
very beginning. The attested existence of the doctrine 
or practice in the fourth century will indeed prove its 
relative antiquity : but this will not afford to us any 
satisfacFory proof of its apostolic origination. An 
error, which sprang up at that early period, is not the 
less an error, because, by lapse of time, it has now be- 
come ancient. With a reference to the apostohc age, 
it is still an innovation : nor does its relative antiquity 
on the one hand obliterate its indelible character of 
relative novelty on the other hand. We cannot justly 
admit any peculiar doctrine or practice of the Latin 
church to be apostolic^ unless it can be regularly traced, 
step by step, up to the time of the apostles. If, while a 
suspicious silence pervades all the writings of the three 
earlier centuries, a doctrine or practice be mentioned 



PREFACE. VU 

for the first time in the fourth century ; we must not 
deem the novel and unsupported testimony of a later 
age sufficient to justify the church of Rome in main- 
taining that such doctrine or practice existed from the 
very beginning. WTiatever is firsts is true^ says Ter- 
tullian: whatever is more recent^ is spurious. This 
being the case, if a doctrine or practice, mentioned in 
the fourth century, be not only left altogether unmen- 
tioned be writers of an earher date ; but if it be even 
contradicted and dissallowed by them : then, a fortiori, 
that doctrine or practice must assuredly be, with re- 
ference to the apostolic age, an unauthorized and 
untenable innovation. 

Thus manifest is it, that any evidence from antiquity, 
which can be brought in favour of the peculiar doc- 
trines and practices of the Roman Church, is of no 
worth, in regard to proving their apostolic origination., 
unless an unbroken chain of witnesses extend to the 
apostolic age, and unless all the successive witnesses 
themselves strictly harmonize together. 

III. Before we can bring the system of the church of 
Rome to this reasonable test, we must ascertain what 
that system actually is. 

Protestants have often been charged with giving a 
false colour to the opinions of the Latins: and it is far 
from impossible (such is the infirmity of human nature), 
that, in the violence of controversy, each party may 
have dealt unfairly with the other. I have now before 
me a tract of the seventeenth century, said to have been 
written by Mr. Gother ; which, enforcing this identical 
allegation, bears the inculpatory title of ^4 Papist mis- 
represented and represented. Without entering into 
the merits of that composition, this at least we must 



Vlll PREFACE. 

say, that, first to charge a Latin with what he holds 
not^ and then gravely to confute opinions which all the 
while he strenuously disclaims^ is alike unfair and un- 
profitable. In discussing the doctrinal system of the 
Roman church, an honest inquirer will take for his 
text-book, not the allegations of a protestant polemic^ 
but some work of credit^ written by an esteemed and 
responsible Latin himself Thus acting, he will see 
w^hat the members of the Roman church profess to 
hold : and, unless he can bring proof from authoritative 
documents that his author disingenuously garbles the 
real opinions of his own communion, the sentiments to 
be brought to the test of antiquity are the sentiments 
avowed in a ivork of this respectable description. 

IV. While such thoughts occupied my mind, an 
English gentleman of family and fortune, with whom 
I have not the advantage of being personally ac- 
quainted, forwarded to me, from the south of France, 
{ in the spring of the current year, a copy of a recent 
I publication by M. Trevern, formerly vicar-general of 
Langres, and now bishop of Aire. 

The copy, thus transmitted to me, was accompanied 
by a letter : in which my correspondent spoke in the 
highest terms of the bishop's personal character; repre- 
sented his work, as having produced a very considerable 
sensation among the travelling English laity ; and, with 
a degree of earnestness which I could scarcely have 
anticipated, requested me to answer it. 

1. On perusing the very able publication of the 
learned and excellent prelate, I found its chief cha- 
racteristic to be that of a studied vindication of the 
church of Rome^ and a studied attack upon the church 
of England. 



PREFACE. IX 

(1.) In vindicating the doctrines and practices of the 
church of Rome, the bishop distinctly states, what, in 
his judgment, those doctrines and practices really are. 
Such being the case, I immediately perceived that 1 
had here the identical text- book w^hich 1 required : for, 
in his lordship's work, I might safely study the system 
of the Latin church, not as distorted by the prejudices 
of an enemy, but as exhibited in its true colours by 
a dignified ecclesiastic, to whom in all its bearings it 
could not but be perfectly familiar. 

(2.) Interested as 1 was on this account in the 
bishop's publication, I was yet additionally interested 
in it by the circumstance, that the same train of rea- 
soning from the evidence of antiquity^ which had passed 
through my own mind, had likewise passed through 
the mind of the bishop. This reasoning, which to 
myself appears so natural and so unobjectionable, he 
makes, in fact, the very basis of his work : for his gene- 
ral argument, in favour of the church of Rome and 
against the church of England, may be briefly stated 
in manner following : — 

Those who conversed with the apostles^ and those who 
lived nearest to the times of the apostles^ mnst best have 
known the mind of the apostles. With these primitive 
theologians^ the church of Rome agrees^ and the church 
of England disagrees. Therefore the former must 
teach the truths while the latter teaches falsehood, 

2. Thus runs the bishop's argument : and thus, in 
evolving his argument does he state and vindicate what 
he himself defines to be the doctrines and practices 
of the church of Rome. On both these accounts, 
therefore, I was deeply interested by his lordship's 
Amicable Discussion : and henceforth I determined to 



-|H 



X PREFACE. 

adopt its authoritative statement of the Latin system, 
as the unimpeachable basis of a work, which should 
exhibit to the Enghsh laity the formidable Difficulties 
of Romanism^ even on the ground assumed by the 
bishop himself. 

His lordship asserts, that, in all those peculiar doc- 
trines and practices, which so grievously offend the 
members of the Anglican church, and which he himself 
specifies and explains with sufficient precision, the 
firm and immutable church of Rome perfectly agrees 
with those primitive theologians, who either conversed 
with the apostles, or who lived nearest to the times of 
the apostles : whence he contends, that the church of 
Rome, unlike the innovating church of England, still 
teaches and still acts, as the catholic church of Christ 
has ever taught and has ever acted from the very 
beginning. 

By this process, the question is resolved, as it ought 
to be resolved, into a naked historical matter of 
FACT, and, accordingly, the sole point to be decided 
is, whether the doctrines and practices of the Roman 
churchy as propounded and explained and vindicated by 
the bishop of Aire himself have or have not the unbroken 
sanction of all primitive antiquity. 

Such then is the ground, a ground of his lordship's 
own selection, on which I am in no wise reluctant to 
take up the discussion : and, when the early ecclesiasti- 
cal writers up to the time of the apostles shall have been 
examined somewhat more fully, perhaps also somewhat 
more impartially, than the bishop has performed the 
task, I greatly mistake, if the alleged immutable church 
of Rome will not stand convicted of palpable innova- 



PREFACE. XI 

tion, and thence (according to TertuUian's canon) of 
manifest error. 

V. Unwilling to waste my strength and my time in a 
mere ephemeral controversy, talked of to-day and for- 
gotten to-morrow, I have endeavoured to impress upon 
my work the character of permanent utility. Had 
the bishop of Aire never undertaken the defence of the 
church of Rome at the expense of the church of Eng- 
land; still a work, in which the claims of the peculiar 
doctrines and practices of the Latin church to the support 
of primitive antiquity are considered with some measure 
of fulness, can never, so long as truth is valuable, be 
useless and unseasonable. When a Roman ecclesias- 
tic perplexes an English laymen by boldly asserting 
the strict accordance of his church with the church 
nearest to the times of the apostles, it is desirable, that 
the layman, without the trouble of any very extended 
research imposed upon himself should be provided with 
a reply. 

1. A wish^ says my intelligent correspondent, to be 
able to answer the questions^ repeatedly and triumphantly 
proposed by the catholics upon topics of this description^ 
is everywhere now reigning. 

Thus speaks a well-informed layman from actual 
experience : the object of my work is to furnish an easy 
reply to such questions, not merely in the present day, 
but at any future period whatsoever. 

2. Your own theologians^ says the bishop of Aire to 
his English friend, no less than ourselves^ have in their 
hands the ancient liturgies of the primitive church and 
the works of the earty ecclesiastical writers : but they will 
have small inclination^ I suspect^ to bring you acquainted 
with such documents. Ask them to communicate these 



XU PREFACE. 

documents to you: desire them to specify the opinions 
which they express. You will soonjind^ that they take 
your request with no very good grace : and^ in truths to 
deal plainly with you^ it is impossible that they should. 
Ah well^ Sir^ 1 will spare them their embarrassment: and^ 
so far as you are concerned^ I will go on to accomplish 
their defective ministrations.^ 

Thus speaks a learned prelate of the Latin Church : 
the object of my work is to furnish a permanent answer 
to the supposed embarrassing questions, which, at his 
lordship's suggestion, the Enghsh laity might propound 
to the English clergy. 

VI. In discussing the difficulties of Romanism on 
the professed ground of primitive antiquity, an obstacle 
occured, which, to a person situated so disadvantage- 
ously as myself, might well have appeared altogether 
insurmountable. 

To work without tools is impossible : the tools, abso- 
lutely necessary for an undertaking of this description, 
are the works of the primitive fathers, the early eccle- 
siastical histories, and the acts of those councils which 
claim to be ecumenical : and it is not the lot of every 
painful student to be enrolled among those highly-privi- 
leged divines, who, by their connexion with colleges or 
with cathedrals, can leisurely expatiate in the free use 
of such requisite instruments. 

As for myself, buried in the deep oblivion of a se- 
questered northern village, possessing only a limited 
collection of the ancient ecclesiastical writers, and from 
local circumstances unable to profit by the rich stores 
of a collegiate hbrary of reference, I should have found 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 8. 



PREFACE. Xm 

it physically impossible to execute the task which has 
been imposed upon me, had not the means been sup- 
plied after a mode, which, in the ordinary course of 
rustic life, could not rationally have been anticipated. 
More ample opportunities might probably have render- 
ed my work less imperfect : yet, with some trifling 
exceptions, the copious library of a valued clerical 
friend, united with my own, left me but little to desire. 
Mr. Anstey will, T hope, permit a neighbour of twenty 
years to say, that the service, which he rendered to me, 
was only surpassed by the manner in which that ser- 
vice was rendered. 

VII. The present work is a work of defence^ not of 
attack : for I claim to possess the advantage of appear- 
ing in the light of a blameless defendant^ not of an 
unprovoked assailant. 

When a Roman ecclesiastic, however excellent and 
venerable his character may be, spontaneously assaults 
the church of England ; and when he attempts to pro- 
selyte her members on the specious but insecure plea, 
that, because she has rejected certain doctrines and 
practices of the Latin church, she Jias therefore departed 
from primitive antiquity : it becomes a matter of strict 
defence to shew, by incontrovertible testimony, that 
the really innovating church is not the church of Eng- 
land, but the church of Rome. 

VIII. In prosecuting the subject which I have been 
induced to take in hand, I felt the want of a term, 
which should express both accurately and compen- 
diously the system of doctrine and practice maintained by 
the church of Rome. 

1 . The word popery I was unwilling to employ : both 

because I have no inchnation to give needless offence ; 
B 



XIV PREFACE. 

and because the marked difference of opinion in regard 
to the papal authority, which subsists between the Cisal- 
pines and the Transalpines, has rendered that word not 
universally proper. 

2. On the other hand, the word Catholicism I could 
not employ : because such a term, when nakedly and 
exclusively applied to the theological system of the 
western Latin church, has always appeared to me most 
singularly incorrect. 

That the Latins are catholics in the same sense that 
the Greeks and the Armenians and the Syrians and the 
Abyssinians and the Enghsh are cathoUcs ; in other 
words, that the Latins constitute one of the many 
branches of Christ's Universal Church ; I am far from 
wishing to deny : but, when a generic name is applied 
specifically to a single particular branch, this palpable 
inaccuracy of nomenclature can only produce a corre- 
spondent erroneousness of conception. 

The name catholic belongs equally to all the 
members of Christ's catholic church, wherever dis- 
persed and however distressed. Hence a name, which 
belongs equally to all whether oriental or occiden- 
tal, cannot be correctly employed, as the special and 
exclusive and descriptive appellation of a part only : 
because, when the term is thus used, the common cha- 
racter of Catholicism is by implication denied to every 
christian, who happens not to be a member of that 
provincial western church which is in communion with 
the bishop of Rome, and which acknowledges him as 
its chief or patriarch. 

3. Rejecting then the two woxdi^ popery and Catho- 
licism for reasons which to myself appeared fully suffi- 
cient, I have adopted the unexceptionable term Ro- 



PREFACE. XV 

manism : and I wish to be understood as employing it 
to designate the peculiar system cf doctrine and practice^ 
which the church of Rome in all her branches maintains 
and inculcates. 

IX. Not ignorant of the impatient indolence of an age 
which claims to have discovered the long-hidden royal 
road to knowledge, I have laboured to be brief: yet, 
aware at the same time that in one mode only can the 
discussion be satisfactorily conducted, I have endea- 
voured to condense within small space no small quan- 
tity of matter. 

Should it please God to render this manual for the 
English laity extensively and permanently useful, I 
shall have my reward. The opprobrium is at least 
avoided, that the English clergy, by their silence, have 
accepted a Latin offer to spare them their embarrass- 
ment^ and to accomplish their defective ministrations. 

Long-Newton Rectory, 
Sept. 17, 1825. 



CONTENTS. 



BOOK I. 



THE DIFFICULTIES ATTElN^DAiyT UPOX THE CHURCH OF ROME IN RE- 
GARD TO HEB PECULIAR DOCTRIIfES AND PRACTICES, p. 35. 



CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT, p. 35. 

Apostolic antiquity and unbending* immutability are the peculiar 
boast of the church of Rome, p. 35. 
I. Its apostolic antiquity is no proof of its unbending* immuta- 
bility, p. 35. 
II. In considering" the difficulties of Romanism, it is equitable 
to hear a Latin himself propound his own scheme of 
doctrine and practice, p. 36. 

III. For this purpose, the bishop of Aire's Amicable Discussion, 

professedly addressed to the English laity, is adopted as a 
text-book, p. 37. 

IV. The main object of this work is to proselyte the English 

laity, partly by rendering them dissatisfied with their own 
national church, and partly by a dexterous vindication of 
the system inculcated by the Latin church. Hence it may 
be viewed, as exhibiting the most favourable statement of 
the peculiarities of that church: and hence, in that capa- 
city, it is unexceptionable as a text-book, p. 37* 



CHAPTER H. 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF 
INFALLIBILITY, p. 39. 

The whole Romish controversy virtually hinges on the doctrine of 
the infallibility of the Latin church, viewed as claiming to 
identify herself with the catholic church, p. 39. 
I. Though by the Latin doctors the infallibility of the church is 
B2 



XVIU CONTENTS. 

strenuously maintained, there is a difference of opinion as 
to where that infallibility resides, p. 39. 

1. Popes have decided against popes, p. 40. 

2. Councils have decided against councils, p. 40. 

3. The church of one age has decided against the 

church of another age, p. 42. 

4. Councils have decided against Scripture, p. 48. 

(1.) Instance from the case of oaths which are ad- 
verse to ecclesiastical utility, p. 48. 
(2.) Instance from the case of the enforced celibacy 
of the clergy, p. 50. 
II. The abstract arguments of the bishop of Aire in favour of 
ecclesiastical infallibility, cannot stand against the direct 
evidence of naked facts, p. 52. 

1. His first argument, p. 52. 

2. His second argument, p. 53. 

3. His third argument, p. 54. 

III. Remarks on the only true and legitimate mode of settling 
points of doctrine or of practice, p. 56. 

1. Whatever cannot be proved from Scripture either 

explicitly or inductively, must be rejected, p. 56. 

2. Whatever claims to be proved from Scripture rests, 

of necessity, upon the basis of the interpretation 

adopted, p. 57. 

(1.) The Latin theory, that all interpretation must 
be regulated and fixed by the absolute autho- 
ritative decision of the church, p. 57. 

(2.) The vague and unsatisfactory theory, that 
interpretation depends wholly upon the exer- 
cise of insulated private judgment, p. 57. 

(3.) The only genuine and satisfactory theory of an 
appeal, where an appeal is possible, to the 
primitive church, 60. 



CHAPTER m. 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN REGARD TO TRADITION AND 
THE DOCTRINAL INSTRUCTION OF THE CHURCH, p. 64. 

The bishop of Aire^s vindicatory remarks on tradition and the 
doctrinal institution of the church abound in fallacies, p. 64. 
I. Fallacy of the objection, that protestants receive some doc- 
trines of the Latin church, while they reject others, p. 64. 
II. Fallacy of the objection against the principle of the English 
churchy that nothing is to be enforced as an article of faith, 
save what can be proved from Scripture, p. 65. 
HI. Fallacy in regard to the formation of the canon of Scripture, 

p. 6r. 



CONTENTS. XIX 



CHAPTER IV. 



THE DIFFICULTIES OF IlOMA]!fISM IN REGARD TO THE DOCTKIIfE OF 
TRANSUBSTANTIATION, p. 68. 

The doctrine of Transubstantiation, like that of the Trinity, is 
purely a question of evidence: whence it must be received 
or rejected, according- as the evidence shall be sufficient or 
insufficient, p. 68. 

I. The doctrine of Transubstantiation may be confuted from 

Scripture alone, even independently of any other aid, p. 70. 

1. Homog-eneous passages must be interpreted homoge- 

neously, p. 71. 

2. The very terms in which the institution of the Eucha- 

rist is described, are fatal to the doctrine of Tran- 
substantiation, p. 73. 
(1.) Verbal argument from St. Matthew's statement, 

p. 73, 
(2.) Verbal argument from St. Paul's statement, 

p. 74. 

3. The doctrine of Transubstantiation contradicts other 

parts of Scripture, p. 74. 

(1.) Argument from our Lord's discourse at Caper- 
naum, p. 74. 

(2.) Argument from the prophetic declaration of 
David, p. 75, 

(3.) Argument from the explicitly and repeatedly 
declared /ficf, that Christ was only once offered 
up as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, p. 76. 

II. The doctrine of Transubstantiation is a novelty, inasmuch as 

it was the doctrine neither of the primitive church nor 
even of the early church, p. 77. 

1. The ancient ecclesiastical writers taught, as the 

genuine doctrine of the catholic church, not a 
PHYSICAL, but a MORAL, changc in the elements, by 
virtue of the prayer of consecration, p. 77, 

2. That such was the case, is clear, from the nature of 

the multiplied comparisons used by the ancients in 
the way of illustration, p. 80. 

3. With this avowed doctrine of a moral change only, 

agree the repeated and positive declarations of the 

early writers, that the consecrated elements only 

SYMBOLIZE the body and blood of Christ, and that 

the LITERAL body and blood of Christ are fot 

received in the Eucharist, p. 82. 

(1.) Clement of Alexandria, p. 82. 

(2.) Tertullian, p. 83. 

(3.) Cyprian, p. 83. 

(4.) Cyril of Jerusalem, po 84. 

(5.) Chrysostom, p. 84. 



XX CONTENTS. 



(6.) Augustine, p. 84. 
(7.) Pope Gelasius, p. 85, 
(8.) Facundus, p. 85. 
Remarks on the context of the passage in Clement of 
Alexandria, as cited above, p. 85. 



CHAPTER V. 

RESPECTING THE LATIN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTAN- 
TIATION, FROM THE LANGUAGE EMPLOYED BY OUR LORD, p. 88. 

The bishop of Aire commences his defence of the doctrine of 
Transubstantiation, by adducing and commenting upon the 
words of Christ himself, p. 88. 
I. His defence of the doctrine from Christ's discourse at Caper- 
naum, p. 88. 

1. The bishop's proposed interpretation of our Lord's 

explanatory words is completely irreconcilable with 
that adopted m the early church, p. 89. 

2. The bishop's interpretation is not, as he contends, 

required by the behaviour of the disciples, p. 92. 
H. His defence of the doctrine from the language of Christ at 
the institution of the Eucharist, p. 93. 

1. When Christ ordained that sacrament, his phraseology 

must have recalled to the minds of the disciples the 
language which he had previously held in the syna- 
gogue at Capernaum : but the question is, how such 
language was understood by them, p. 93. 

2. The bishop's objections to the ancient figurative 

scheme of interpretation, as revived and adopted by 

the church of England, p. 94. 

(1.) His objection, that bread had never, before the 
institution of the Eucharist, been taken as a 
sign of Christ's body, p. 94. 

(2.) His objection founded on 4:he denial of the 
alleged homogeneity of apparently homoge- 
neous passages, p. 96. 



CHAPTER VL 

RESPECTING THE LATIN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUB- 
STANTIATION, FROM THE SECRET DISCIPLINE OF THE EARLY 
CHURCH, p. 98. 

The bishop of Aire proceeds in his defence of the doctrine of 
Transubstantiation, by entering into a discussion of the secret 
discipline of the early church, p. 98. 
I. His argument to prove, that the doctrine of Transubstantia- 



SK-S^^^NB?- 



CONTENTS. XXI 

tion was the sole and grand secret of the christian mysteries, 
p. 100. 

1. The true doctrine of the Eucharist was not the exclu- 

sive secret of the ancient christian mysteries, p. 101, 

2. The true doctrine of the Eucharist was not even the 

^rawc^secret of the ancient christian mysteries, p. 101. 
(1.) Proof from the catechetical lectures of Cyril of 

Jerusalem, p. 102. 
(2.) Proof from the testimony of Jerome, p. 105. 
f3.) Proof from Origen, p. 105. 
(4.) Proof from Augustine, p. 108. 
(5.) Proof from the Philopatris, p. 108. 

3. So far from the doctrine of Transubstantiation being 

either the sole or the grand secret of the mysteries, 
it was, in truth, not taught by them at all, p. 110. 
(1.) Since the catholic church of the five first cen- 
turies recognised no change in the elements 
save a moral change; it is impossible, that the 
doctrine of a physical change could have been 
taught in the mysteries which seemed to have 
been instituted in the course of the second 
century, p. 111. 
(2. ) This position is fully established by the remark- 
able circumstance, that none of the ancient 
pagans ever ridicule the doctrine of Transub- 
stantiation, though they frequently ridicule the 
genuine mysterious doctrines of Christianity, 
p. 112. 
II. The bishop's argument in favour of Transubstantiation, from 
the allegations of the pagans, that the christians in the 
celebration of their mysteries devoured human flesh and 
drank human blood, shown, from the explicit denial of the 
christians themselves, to be altogether untenable, p. 116. 



CHAPTER VII. 

RESPECTING THE LATIN DEFENCE OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUB- 
STANTIATION, FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE ANCIENT LITURGIES, 
AND FROM THE PHRASEOLOGX OF THE EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL 
WRITERS, p. 121. 

The bishop of Aire completes his defence of the doctrine of 
Transubstantiation, by adducing the language of the ancient 
liturgies and the phraseology of the early ecclesiastical 
writers. In prosecuting this part of his subject, he diligently 
quotes, in the sense of a physical change of the elements, 
passages, which speak only of their moral change. Mean- 
while, he suppresses the passages which make directly against 
his system. At their existence, indeed, he faintly hints; but. 



XXll CONTENTS. 

while he attempts, thoug^h unsuccessfully, to invalidate them; 

he g-ives his English laic correspondent no opportunity of 

judg-ing" for himself by an ocular inspection of such passag-es, 

p. 121. 
I. His first line of argument proceeds on the ground, that the 
type and the antitype, or the thing symbolizing and the 
thing symbolized, may be perfectly identical: a mode of 
reasoning, by which we may clearly demonstrate the smy^ 
bolizing woman Hagar to be identical with the symbolized 
mount Sinai in Arabia, p. 122. 
II. His second line of argument, which is palpably inconsistent 
with his first, proceeds on the ground, that the old fathers 
were in two different stories, as they severally addressed 
the Catechumens and the Mystse, p. 124. 

1. This argument is confuted by the explicit language 

of Augustine's Enarrations, which were certainly 
addressed to the Mystse, p. 125. 

2. The true key to the occasional language of the ancient 

liturgies and of the early ecclesiastical writers, is the 
doctrine of a moral, as contradistinguished from a 
PHYSICAL, change, p. 126. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

RLSPECTING THE RISE AND PROGRESS AND FINAL ESTABLISHMENT 
OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, p. 128. 

An historical sketch of the rise and progress and final establish- 
ment of the doctrine of Transubstantiation; as it gradually 
sprang up, by an increasing departure from the old doctrine 
of a MORAL change, to the new doctrine of a physical 
chang-e, in the consecrated elements, p. 128. 
I. In the fifth century, Eutyches constructed an argument, in 
favour of his own peculiar speculation respecting the trans- 
formation of Christ's human nature into the divine sub- 
stance, upon the hitherto unheard-of doctrine of a physical 
change wrought in the elements by virtue of consecration, 
p. 128. 

1. The premises of his argument were immediately 

denied by Theodoret, in the same century, p. 129. 

2. They were also denied by Pope Gelasius in the same 

century, p. 131. 

3. And they were again denied by Ephrem of Antioch, 

in the sixth century, p. 132. 
II. In the year 787, the second Council of Nice, reversing the 
decree of the Council of Constantinople in the year 754, 
ratified the new doctrine of a physical change, p. 133. 
IH. In the niath century, the present doctrine of Transubstan- 
tiation was first regularly drawn out and digested by 
Paschase of Corby, p. 134. 



CONTENTS. XXm 

IV. In the year 1079, that doctrine was maintained by Pope 
Gregory VII. agahist Barenger, who adhered to the old 
doctrine of a moral change: and, in the year 1215, it was 
finally established by Pope Innocent III. in the fourth 
Council of Lateran, p. 135. 

V. When Paschase, in the ninth century, started the present 
doctrine of Transabstantiation, it was immediately opposed 
by Raban of Mentz, and many others, as an error of late 
origin, and of only partial adoption, p. 135. 



CHAPTER TX. 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMASTISIM IN RESPECT TO AUmcULAR COlSr- 
FESSIOX, AS IMPOSED AISTD El^FORCED BY THE CHURCH OF ROMEj 
p. 139. 

The church of England allows auricular confession to a priest: _ 
the church of Rome enforces it, p. 139. 
I. The bishop of Aire attempts to prove the religious necessity 
of auricular confession, by inductive reasoning from Scrip- 
ture, p. 139. 

1. His argument stated and considered, p. 139. 

2. Remarks on the fallacy involved in the terms em- 

ployed by him, p. 141. 
II. The bishop of Aire further attempts to prove his point from 
ecclesiastical antiquity, p. 142. 

1. Clement of Rome, p. 143. 

2. Irenaeus, p. 143. 

3. Tertullian, p. 143. 

4. Socrates and Sozomen, p. 144. 

5. Practice of the West. Ambrose of Milan, p. 145. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMAISTISM IJ!ir RESPECT TO THE DOCTRINE OF 
SATISFACTION, p. 148. 

The bishop of Aire's statement of the Romish doctrine of satis- 
faction, p. 148. 
I. His statement is unsatisfactory, because irreconcilable with 

Scripture, p. 149. 
II. Opinions of the fathers, p. 152. 

III. To appease the anger of God and to satisfy Ms justice are not 

phrases of the same import, p. 153. 

IV. The evidence, adduced by the bishop, is insufficient, p. 154. 



XXIV CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER XI. 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO INBtTLGENCES, 

p. 156. 

The origin and perversion of indulgences, p. 156. 
I. The bishop of Aire's attempt to deduce indulgences from 

the authority of St. Paul, p. 157. 
II. The sale of indulgences at the time of the Reformation, p. 158. 
III. The doctrine of Supererogation as now held by the church 
of Rome, p. 159. 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO PURGATORY, p. 161. 

The bishop of Aire confesses, that the existence of purgatory 
cannot be proved from Scripture, p. 161. 
I. Hence he attempts to prove it inductively from the untena- 
ble doctrine of Satisfaction, p. 161. 
II. The bishop claims all antiquity ^ as being in his favour: but 
then, according to the tenour of his citations, all antiquity 
commences about the middle of the third century, p. 163. 

1. All antiquity commences with Cyprian: and Cyprian, 

though cited by the bishop as favourable to his 
cause, is directly hostile to it, p. 163. 

2. All real antiquity is against the bishop: as we may 

learn from Clement of Rome, Poly carp, Ignatius, 
Irenseus, Athenagoras, and the old writer in the 
works of Justin Martyr, p. 165." 



CHAPTER XITI. 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO PRATERS FOR THE 
DEAD, p. 167. 

Holy Scripture is perfectly silent respecting the duty or benefit 

of prayers for the dead, p. 167. 

I, The insufficiency of the bishop of Aire's proof, from the Mac- 

cabaean history, shown by the canon of Cyril of Jerusalem, 

and his direct testimony against the authority of the 

Apocrypha, p. 168. 

II. The bishop's allegation, that the duty of praying for the dead 

is taught by the silence of Christ, p. 169. 
III. The bishop's attempted proof from the fathers, that prayers 
for the dead are pious and profitable, p. 170. 

1. Omitting the earliest ecclesiastical writers, the bishop 
begins with Tertullian, p. 171. 
(1). The meaning of the phrase, oblations for the 
dead, as used by Tertulhan, p. 171. 



CONTENTS. XXV 

(2.) Tertullian's speculation respecting prayers for 
the dead, p. 172. 
2. The bishop further adduces Cyprian, Chrysostom, 
and Augustine, p. 173. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

1.2T HISTORICAL SKETCH OP THE RISE OF PRATERS FOR THE DEAD 
AND OF THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY, p. 174. 

The rise and progress of prayers for the dead, and of the con- 
nected doctrine of Purgatory, p. 174. 
I. Tertullian, p. 174. 
II. Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 174. 
III. Augustine, p. 175. 

1. Hesitation of Augustine, p. 176. 

(1.) Exemplified from one of his treatises, p. 176. 
(2.) Exemplified from one of his sermons, p. 176. 
(3.) Exemplified from another treatise, p. 177. 
(4.) Exemplified from another discourse, 177. 

2. Striking and essential diflTerence between the purga- 

tory of Augustine and the purgatory of the modern 
Roman church, p. 178. 

3. Augustine's exposition of 1 Corinth, iii. 10 — 15. was 

unknown to his predecessors Tertullian and Origen, 
p. 179. 



CHAPTER XV. 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE INVOCATION 
OF THE SAINTS, p. 180. 

The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the invocation of the 

saints, p. 180. 

I, Even on the alleged ground, that the invocation of the 

saints is merely intercessory, the practice, not being 

authorized by Scripture, and manifestly tending to idolatry, 

is utterly unjustifiable, p. 181. 

1. We might well be satisfied with the simple fact alone, 

that Scripture, while it allows us to ask the inter- 
cessory prayers of the living, does not authorize us 
to ask the intercessory prayers of the dead, p. 181. 

2. But, of this striking circumstance, it is not very diffi- 

cult to ascertain the rationale , p. 182. 

(1.) The nature and origin of the pagan hero-wor- 
ship, which was adopted by the apostate Israel- 
ites, p. 182. 

(2. ) St. Paul's prophecy of the christian apostacy 
was supposed, in the early church, to foretell 
the worship of canonized dead men, p. 183. 



XXVI CONTENTS. 

(o.) To ask the intercessory prayers of the living 

could not lead to idolatry: hence, in Scripture, 

it is allowed. To ask the intercessory prayers 

of the dead has a direct tendency to produce 

idolatry: hence, in Scripture, it is no where 

authorized, p. 184. 

11. The avowed ground, on which alone the bishop of Aire 

defends the invocation of the saints, is, that they are merely 

requested to give us their intercessory prayers, p. 185. 

1. Yet he himself confesses that his statement is not 

perfectly accurate, p. 185. 

2. Its inaccuracy is yet further shown even by his own 

citations from certain of the later fathers, p. 185. 

3. Its inaccuracy is additionally shown by the authorized 

prayers of the Latin church, in which not merely 

the intercession of the saints is requested, but in 

which they are implored to grant such gifts and 

graces and blessings as God alone can bestow, p. 189. 

III. The bishop, as usual, in his appeal to antiquity, quotes only 

the later fathers, in whose time corruption had begun to 

invade the church. For obvious reasons he refrains from 

adducing the really primitive fathers, p. *194. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE WORSHIP OF 
RELICS, p. 193. 

The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the worship of relics, 
p. 193. 
I. He professedly rests the whole matter upon the alleged fact, 
that relics are simply used in the Latin church as recorda- 
tory aids to devotion, p. 194. 
II. His statement shown to be inaccurate, p. 195. 

III. His account of the worship of relics unsatisfactory, p. 198. 

IV. His proof of the legality of relic-worship, from miracles said 

to have been wrought over the relics of the saints, p. 199. 
V. His attempt to trace relic- worship to the age of the apostles, 
-^p. 200. 

1. First proof, p. 200. 

2. Second proof, p. 200. 

3. Third proof, p. 201. 

4. Fourth proof, p. 201. 



CHAPTER XVIL 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE VENERATION 
OF IMAGES, p. 202. 

The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the veneration of 
images, p. 202. 



CONTENTS. XXVll 

I. The decision of the second Council of Nice, as adduced by 

the bishop, p, 202. 
n. The decision of the second Council of Nice, as understood and 
expounded by James Naclantus, bishop of Clugium, p. 202. 

1. The decision of the council given in full, p. 202. 

2. The exposition of James of Clugium, as published in 

Italy, during the sixteenth century, without any 
censure from the church of Rome, p. 203. 

III. The bishop's defence of image-worship, on the plea of the 

difference between absolute-worship and relative-worship, 
p. 204. 

IV. The apprehension of protestants respecting image-worship, 

though censured by the bishop as groundless, has been 
too well justified by the event, p. 207. 

1. The danger, in the case of new converts from pagan- 

ism, is allowed by the bishop himself, p. 207. 

2. But this danger, in countries which have been long 

converted to Christianity, he deems chimerical, 

p. 208. 

(1.) Singular incongruity in the language adopted 

by the bishop, p. 209. 

(2.j Specimen of authorized Roman devotion, p. 210. 

(3.) Pope Gregory and Serenus of Marseilles, p. 212. 

V. The bishop adduces the fathers on his behalf: but, as before, 

he prudently adduces not one of the really ancient or 

earliest fathers, p. 216. 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM IN RESPECT TO THE ADORATION 07 
THE CROSS, p. 219. 

The case made out by the bishop of Aire for the adoration of the 
cross, p. 219. 
I. The decision of the second Council of Nice, p. 220. 
IL The bishop, as a member of the church of Rome, is pledged 
either to defend the adoration of the cross, or to censure 
the decision of the council, p. 220. 

1. The insufficiency of the plea, which the bishop 

attempts to set up on the ground of the difference 
between religious worship and civil homage, p ,220. 

2. Inconclusive reasoning of the bishop from Galat. vi. 

14. p. 221. 

3. The bishop's defence of the adoration of the cross, 

from its alleged remarkable property of silencing 
pagan oracles, p. 222. 

4. The bishop claims the ancient fathers of the primitive 

church, as favourable to the adoration of the cross; 
but, as usual, he adducces only the later fathers; in 



XXVlll CONTENTS. 

whose time, a superstition, unknown to their pre- 
decessors, had crept into^the church, p. 222. 
(1.) Cyril of Alexandria, being* evidently unable to 
deny the allegation of Julian, that christians 
even in the middle of the fourth century 
worshipped the material cross, proves more, 
in the fifth century, than can be quite agreea- 
ble to the bishop, p. 222. 
(2.^ TertuUian, at the end of the second and at the 
beginning" of the third century, is not in the 
bishop's favour; and says nothing, in the least 
degree, to the purpose, p. 223. 
(3.) Minucius Felix, at the beginning of the third 
century, is directly against the bishop, p. 224. 
III. A sketch of the rise and progress of cross-worship, drawn 
out from materials furnished by the bishop himself, p. 225. 



BOOK IT. 



THE DIFFICULTIES ATTENDANT UPON THE CHURCH OF ROME IK 
REGARD TO HER CLAIM OF UNIVERSAL SUPREMACY, p. 227. 



CHAPTER I. 

RESPECTING THE POLITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, p. 229. 

To demonstrate, that the form of ecclesiastical polity, which has 
been adopted by the church of England, was of divine 
appointment, nothing more is requisite than the Bible, 
illustrated by the attestation of two of the oldest fathers to 
a naked matter of fact, p. 229. 
I. The testimony of Irenseus, the scholar of Polycarp, the 

disciple of St. John, p. 230. 
II. The testimony of Clement of Rome, the friend and companion 
and fellow-labourer of St. Paul, p. 232. 

1. His testimony respects a fact, which was occurring in 

his own time, p. 233. 

2. The theory, that the primitive bishops and presby- 

ters were identical, is irreconcilable with the testi- 
mony to facts, borne by TertuUian and Irenseus and 
Clement of Rome, p. 236. 
III. The testimony of Scripture, as interpreted by the attestation 
of Iren<eus and Clement to naked facts, which they beheld 
with their own eyes, and in which mistake was physically 
impossible, p. 238. 



CONTENTS. XXIX 

CHAPTER II. 

RESPECTING THE LATIN OBJECTIONS TO THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN 
GENERAL, AND TO THE ORDERS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN 
PARTICULAR, p. 240. 

The bishop of Aire's historical account of the establishment of 
the reformed church of England, p. 240. 
I. His objection to the church of England in general rests upon 
the character and conduct of two of our princes, 240. 

1. The objection deduced from the character of King 

Henryyill.,p. 240. 

2. The objection deduced from the conduct of Queen 

Elizabeth, p. 241. 
II. His objection to the orders of the church of England in par- 
ticular rests upon the allegation, that the chain of apostoli- 
cal succession has been broken, p. 244. 



CHAPTER III. 

RESPECTING THE ALLEGED SCHISM OF THE REFORMED CHURCH OF 
ENGLAND, p. 247. 

The English church is charged with schism, on the ground, that 
Peter, as the primate of the apostolic college, and the line of 
the Roman bishops, as his successors, in place and preroga- 
tive, are the divinely-appointed centre of ecclesiastical unity. 
Whence it follows, that any separation from Rome is unjusti- 
fiable schism, p. 247. 
I. An examination of the alleged fact, which forms the basis of 
the argument, p. 249. 

1. Nothing, which is recorded in Scripture, demonstrates 

the imaginary primacy of Peter, p. 249. 
(1.) First scriptural testimony, p. 250. 
(2.) Second scriptural testimony, p. 251. 
(3.) Third scriptural testimony, p. 251. 
(4.) Fourth scriptural testimony, p. 252. 
(5.) Fifth scriptural testimony, p. 252. 
(6.) Sixth scriptural testimony, p. 253. 
(7.) Seventh scriptural testimony, p. 253. 

2. Nothing, which is recorded in Scripture demonstrates 

the imaginary primacy of the see of Rome, p. 254. 
II. The argument, built on Mat. xvi. 13 — 19, rests on the two 
main positions: that Peter was the first bishop of Rome; 
and that Christ, by declaring Peter to be the rock upon 
which he w^ould build his entire church, conferred upon 
that apostle and his Roman successors the divine right of 
an universally-controlling primacy, p. 255. 

1. There is no evidence from antiquity, that Peter was 
the first bishop of Rome: on the contrary, the evi- 
dence is directly against any such supposition, p. 257. 
C 2 



XXX CONTENTS. 

2. There is no evidence from antiquity, that Peter and 
his alleged successors in the see of Rome were sup- 
posed by the early christians to be conjointly the 
rock on which Christ promised to found his church: 
on the contrary, we find, that the primitive ecclesi- 
astical writers never interpreted the text as it is 
now interpreted by the modern Latin church, p. 261. 
III. The perfect independence of the church of England on the 

church of Rome, according to the principles of primitive 

order, p. 263. 

1. Even if the church of England perfectly agreed in 

doctrine with the church of Rome, still that circum- 
stance would give the latter no right of authoritative 
domination over the former, p. 264. 

2. Neither is any right of authoritative domination given 

to the church of Rome by the circumstance, that, in 
point of ecclesiastical derivation, the Anglican church 
is her daughter, p. 264-. 

3. The argument for the independence of the English 

church is complete, even abstractedly from the alle- 
gation of idolatry against the church of Rome, p. 265. 



CHAPTER IV. 

RESPECTING THE PRACTICABILITY OF AN UNION OF THE CHURCH OF 
ROME AND THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, p. 267. 

The bishop of Aire strongly recommends an union of the churches 
of Rome and England, p. 267. 
I. The scheme of union, proposed by the bishop, is, that 
England must adopt implicitly the whole doctrinal system 
of Rome: and Rome, in return, will indulge her in the 
matter of discipline, p. 267. 
II. Remarks on the bishop's scheme of union, p. 269. 

1. The bishop requires, that the whole matter of con- 

cession shall be entirely on the side of the Anglican 
church: for he demands an unconditional doctrinal 
submission to the behests of the church of Rome, 
on the ground that the religious principles of Rome 
are immutable, p. 269. 

2. Such a submission, unattended by real conviction, 

would be nothing better than base hypocrisy. To 
effect any creditable and beneficial submission, there- 
fore, the bishop must first demonstrate the indubi- 
table truth of the Roman system of doctrine, p. 270. 

3. Singular inconsistency of the bishop in regard to the 

alleged invalidation of the Anglican orders by the 
marriagesofScory and Barlow and Coverdale, p. 271. 

4. According to the bishop, the lamentable ignorance of 



CONTENTS. XXXI 

the English reformers was the true cause, which 
separated the church of England from the church of 
Rome, p. 272. 
5. According to the bishop, the no less lamentable igno- 
rance of the present English clergy keeps their de- 
luded church still in a state of schismatical separa- 
tion, p. 275. 



CHAPTER V. 

RESPECTING THE BISHOP OF AIRE's CENSURE OF THE REFORMATION, 
HIS APOLOGY FOR THE INQUISITION, AND HIS PROTEST AGAINST 
FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, p. 276. 

The principles, advocated even by such a man as the bishop of 
Aire, serve in themselves to show the lamentable corruption 
of the Roman system of doctrine, p. 276. 
I. The bishop's censure of the Reformation, p. 276. 
II. The bishop's apology for the Inquisition, p. 279. 

1. Respecting the ground taken by the bishop, that any 

unjustifiable acts, perpetrated by the Inquisition, 
ought not to be charged upon the inquisition itself, 
but upon its officers, p. 279. 

2. Respecting the ground taken by the bishop, that the 

number of innocent victims has been greatly exag- 
gerated, p. 280. 

3. Respecting the ground implicatively taken by the 

bishop, that the Inquisition is justified in the 
slaughter of those whom the church of Rome 
deems guilty victims, p. 281. 
III. The bishop's protest against freedom of religious worship, 
p. 283. 

1. The freedom of religious worship, allowed by the 

Anglican church, is openly reprobated, by a prelate 
of the Roman church, as a dangerotis and mischiev- 
ous policy, which must end in the downfal of the 
Anglican church, and which, therefore, no wise 
ecclesiastical governors would tolerate, p. 283. 

2. The future destiny of the church of England no man 

can with certainty prognosticate : yet, if the church 
of Rome should be re-edified upon her ruins, it may 
be doubted, whether the protestant dissenters will 
experience any real benefit from the exchange, 
p. 284 

3. The error of those modern protestants, who imagine 

that the church of Rome has essentially changed 
from her former self, is corrected by the express 
declaration of the bishop, that her principles, once 
defined, are irrevocable, p . 285. 



XXXll CONTENTS. 



4. The bishop^s tempting proposal to the parochial cler- 
gy of England, on the part of the episcopal bench 
of Rome, p. 285. 



CHAPTER VI. 

coisrcLUsiox. 

The Author's parting valediction to the worthy and exemplary, 
though, as he apprehends, lamentably mistaken, bishop of 
Aire, p. 287. 



APPENDIX. 

BSSFZCTING THE AUTHENTIC LETTERS OF THE AFOSTLIS 
MENTIONED BY TERTULLIAN, p. 289. 



BOOK I. 

THE DIFFICULTIES ATTENDANT UPON THE CHURCH 

OF ROME, IN REGARD TO HER PECULIAR 

DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES. 

Certe sacramenta quse sumimus, corporis et sangninis-Domini, 
divina res est 5 propter quod et per eadem divinse efficimur con- 
sortes naturse. Et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura 
panis et vini ; et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis 
Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. — Papa Gelas. de Duah. 
Christ, Natur. cont. Nestor, et Eutydi. in Biblioth. Fair, vol. iv. p. 
422. 

Spiritaliter intelligite quod locutus sum. Non hoc corpus, quod 
videtis, mandicaturi estis ; nee bibituri ilium sanguinem, quern 
fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis com- 
mendavi: spiritaliter intellectum vivificabit vos. — August, Enarr, 
in Psalm, xcviii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 397. Colon, 1616. 



CHAPTER I. 

Introductory Statement. 

Apostolic antiquity, and unbending immutability^ 
are the peculiar boast of the church of Rome. 

I. So far as bare ecclesiastical existence is con- 
cerned, no person will be disposed to controvert its 
apostolic antiquity; for Scripture itself bears witness 
to the fact of its existence^ even while the great 
Evangelist of the gentiles was still alive; and, accord- \ 
ing to the competent testimony of Irenaeus, it was| 
founded by persons of no less dignity than the two | 
most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, who byj 
their joint authority, constituted Linus its first 
bishop.* But the fact of its alleged immutability 
rests upon a foundation by no means equally secure. 

Whatever is first J says TertuUian, is true; what- 
ever is more recent is spurious, \ 

To the severe test of this primitive canon, we 
must ultimately bring the lofty pretensions of the 
Latin church. The real question is not, whether 
many of its doctrines and practices be not of very 
remote antiquity; but the real question is, whether 
they can claim such antiquity as reaches to the age 
of approving apostolic authority . Unless a chain 
can be constructed, which shall bind the modern 
church of Rome to the primitive church of Christ, 
the mere comparative antiquity of its peculiar doc- 
trines and practices will assuredly avail nothing, 

"* Iren. adv. Haer. lib. iii. c. 3. 
t Tertull. adv.Prax. § ii. p. 405. 



\>^^^ 



36 INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 

The connecting link will be wanted : and, let such doc- 
trines and such practices have been introduced when 
they may, still, since they cannot be shown to have 
existed from the beginning, they stand convicted 
of novelty ; and, on that specific ground, they must, 
agreeably to the canon of Tertullian, be rejected as 
spurious. 

li the cldiim o{ ini?mit ability Jrom the very age 
of the Apostles could, indeed, be substantiated, every 
dissident from the Latin church would forthwith 
incur the just charge of manifest heresy. But here 
lies the grand difficulty of Romanism : a claim is 
preferred, which never has been, and which never 
can be, substantiated. The very circumstance of 
such a claim having been preferred, brings the whole 
matter to a question of naked historic fact; and, 
by the resolution of that question, the church of 
Rome is clearly found guilty of innovation. 

II. In considering the difficulties attendant upon 
the Latin system of theology, I should be sorry to 
appear in the light of a captiour and unfais objector. 
I wish to give the system every advantage; and, for 
that purpose, I would select as my text-book, not the 
unfavourable representation of a protestant contro- 
versialist, but the flattering delineation of a professed 
Roman advocate. Certainly, it is the most equitable 
to hear a Latin plead his own cause, and exhibit his 
own scheme of doctrine; nor is such a plan less ad- 
vantageous than equitable. If, when the cause as 
pleaded by hi7nself s\\d\\ have been fairly heard, the 
difficulties of his system still appear insurmountable, 
he can have no reason to complain of having experi- 
enced controversial injustice. Meanwhile, if that 
system shall prove to be untenable, even when 
managed by all the dexterity of a practised advocate, 
what must be the condition of such a scheme, when 
viewed through a less flattering medium? 

III. The composition which I have chosen as my 
text-book, is a very able work, recently published by 



INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 37 

the present excellent Bishop of Aire, under the title 
of " Jin Amicable Discussion respecting the Jin- 
glican church in particular^ and the Reformation 
in generaL^^^ 

In an epistle prefixed to it, this important work is 
dedicated to the clergy of all the Protestant commu- 
nions; but it is specially addressed, in the form of 
letters, to an English traveller, who is described by 
the bishop as having stated to him certain doubts 
that had sprung up in his mind, with respect to the 
canonical legitimacy of his own church, and as hav- 
ing requested him to facilitate his honest research 
after theological truth. The desire of the traveller, 
whether real or fictitious, is granted; and the pro- 
duction of the bishop's work is the consequence. 

IV. Of this work the main object is evidently the 
proselytism of the English laity. Such being the 
case, it was necessary, on the one hand, to attack the 
principles and the authority of the Anglican church: 
while, on the other hand, it was equally necessary to 
vindicate and to recommend the peculiar doctrines 
and practices of the church of Rome. 

A work of this description I judged to be singu- 
larly adapted to the purpose which I had in view. 

The respectable author of the Amicahle Discus- 
sion is a prelate of the Latin church: he has under- 
taken to exhibit the peculiarities of his communion 
as they really exist, not as they are alleged to have 



* Discussion Amicale sur I'Eglise Anglicane et en g-eneral sur la 
Reformation, dediee au Clerge de toutes les Communions Vto-^^J 
testantes, et redigee en forme de Lettres, par Monseigneur /T^ 
L'Eveque d'Aire. A Paris, chez Potey, Rue de Bac, No. 46. — / \ 
Let me be permitted to remark, that it is not merely the talent 
evinced in this publication which is likely to give it success; the 
personal character of the bishop himself must, of necessity, with 
all those who are fortunate enough to enjoy his acquaintance, add 
a tenfold weight to his writings. His character, says the English 
gentleman who transmitted to me his work from France, is well 
known here ; he is one of the very best of men, I deem it a privi- 
lege to adopt the work of such a man as my text-book. 

D 



ob INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 

been disfigured by protestant misrepresentation; and 
in his high episcopal character, he may be viewed as 
one who speaks with a full measure both of know- 
ledge and of authority. Under the hands of the 
exemplary Bishop of Aire, Romanism appears in its 
most captivating habiliments: whatever might offend 
the prejudices of an English layman is gracefully 
and decorously explained: doctrines and practices, 
which he had been taught to view with unutterable 
dislike, are shown, on the professed score of primi- 
tive antiquity, to be not only innocent, but even 
venerable and obligatory: and that alone catholic 
church, which the distempered imagination of panic- 
struck protestantism had pourtrayed as a misshapen 
and ferocious monster, proves, upon a candid exami- 
nation, to be no other than a meek and harmless 
Hind.* If, then, Romanism, even as exhibited by 
such an advocate as the Bishop of Aire, still pre- 
sents insuperable difficulties, the sober laic inquirer 
will at least pause, before he ventures to adopt a 
theological system thus unhappily circumstanced. 

Nor did I deem the work useful to me solely on 
the ground of its professedly giving a true and un- 
garbled statement of the Latin faith. Since it 
attacks the church of England no less than it vindi- 
cates the church of Rome, I am thence enabled, by 
the aid of this valuable text-book, at once to point 
out the difficulties of Romanism, and to place before 
the eyes of the English laic the impregnable ground 
on which his own truly apostolic church has taken 
her lofty station. 

* The rest amazed, 

Stood mutely still, and on the stranger gazed; 
Surveyed her part by part; and sought to find 
The ten-horn'd monster in the harmless Hind, 
Such as the wolf and panther had design'd. 

Drxden's Hind and Fanther, Part i. 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 39 



CHAPTER II. 

The Difficulties of Romanism in regard io the 
Cla im of In fa nihility . 

If the infallibility of the Latin church could be 
clearly established, no person could rationally object 
to her theological decisions: for it were palpable 
madness in a fallible being to contend against ac- 
knowledged infallibility. 

Hence I have ever thought, that the es^tahlishment 
of infallibility is the very nucleus of the Roman 
controversy; and hence I have always been specially 
desirous to hear the arguments which could be 
adduced in its favour. 

Having never yet met with any thing satisfactory 
on the subject, I felt gratified at perceiving it dis- 
cussed by such a man as the eminently learned 
Bishop of Aire; and I entered, with no ordinary in- 
terest, upon the perusal of his vindication.* 

I. The prerogative of infallibility, or (what 
amounts to the same thing) the prerogative" of entire 
freedom from all doctrinal error, is, I believe, unani- 
mously claimed by the Latins on behalf of their own 
particular church. For they claim the privilege on 
behalf of the church catholic; and they exclusively 
identify the church catholic with the Latin or Roman 
church of the great western Patriarchate. 

That the privilege, then, of infallibility resides in 
the catholic church, is strenuously maintained: but, 
as to the precise quarter where it is to be found, 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. iii. 



40 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

there is not the same unanimity. Let it be sought, 
however, where it may, I greatly fear that its disco- 
very will prove to be a hopeless impossibility. 

1. The Jesuits and those high Romanists who bear 
the appellation of Transalpines^ unless my informa- 
tion be wholly incorrect, contend for the personal 
infallihility of the pope, when on any point of 

faith he undertakes to issue a solemn decision.^ 

If this theory be adopted, I perceive not how we 
can reconcile the authoritative declaration of Gregory 
the Great, respecting an article of no small doctrinal 
importance, with the completely opposite declarations 
of the popes, his successors. 

Whoever claims the universal episcopate^ said 
Gregory about the latter end of the sixth century, is 
\ the forerunner of Antichrist, ^ 

Such is the decision of Gregory: yet this identical 
universal episcopate, as we all know, has been subse- 
quently claimed by numerous pontiffs who have sat 
in what they deem the chair of St. Peter.f 

Hence it plainly follows, that, if the decision of 
Gregory be received as an infallible truth, his suc- 
cessors in the pontificate are the forerunners of Anti- 
christ; while on the other hand, if his successors in 
the pontificate be not the forerunners of Antichrist, 
the decision of Gregory must be viewed as erroneous. 

2. A protestant, however, may well spare himself 
the trouble of formally confuting the theory, by 
which the pope is decorated wdth the attribute of 
personal infallibility: for the low Romanists, who 
are distinguished by the name of Cisalpines, not 
only deny this infallibility of the pope, but even hold 

* Butler's Book of the Rom. Cath. Church, p. 121-124. 

\ Ego fidenter dico, quod quisquis se Universalem Sacerdo- 
tem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua, Antichristum 
prsecurrit. — Gregor. Magn. Epist. hb. vi. epist. 30. 

% Quod solus Romanus Pontifex jure dicatur Universalis. — Gre- 
gor. sept, dictat. Epist. lib. ii. epist. S5, Labb. Concil. Sacrosanct, 
vol.x. p. 110. 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 41 

that he may be deposed by the church or by a gene- 
ral council for heresy or schism.''^ Under such cir- 
cumstances, if the prerogative of infallibility belong 
to the church, we must seek its residence elsewhere 
than in the person of the pope. 

In what favoured region, then, shall we find this 
exalted privilege? The moderate Romanists, w^ho 
claim infallibility for the catholic church collectively, 
suppose it to be lodged, as a sacred deposit, with each 
general council viewed as the legitimate organ and 
representative of the catholic church. 

This hypothesis, in the abstract, is not devoid of 
plausibility; but, if we resort to facts, it will turn 
out to be not more tenable than the last. From 
faithful history we learn, that general councils, upon 
points both of doctrine and of practice, have decided 
in plain and avowed opposition to each other. 

The Council of Constantinople, for instance, con- 
voked in the year 754, unanimously decreed the 
removal of images and the abolition of image-wor- 
ship; but the second Council of Nice, convoked ^ 
in the year 787, decreed the re-establishment of 
image-worship, and anathematized all those who had 
concurred in its abolition. 

I have simply stated* a mere historical fact; but 
the result from it is abundantly manifest. Two dis- 
cordant councils cannot both be in the right; and, if 
a single council be pronounced by the counter-deci- 
sion of another council to have erred, the phantom 
of infallibility forthwith vanishes.! 

* Butler's Book of the Rom. Cath. Church, p. 121-124. 

f The variations of the Church, relative to the single point of 
imag-e-worship, are so extraordinary, that they well deserve the 
attention of those who contend for her infallibility. 

I. The ancient Council of Elvira, which sat during" the reig-n of 
Constantine, and therefore, in the early part of the fourth cen- 
tury, strictly enjoined^ that neither painting's nor imag-es, repre- 
senting the person whom we adore, should be introduced into 
churches. 

For this striking and undoubted fact the Bishop of Aire would 
l>2 



J 



42 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

3. To rid themselves of this difficulty, the theolo- 
gians of the Latin church contend, that the decisions 
of no council are to be deemed infallibly true, unless 
they shall have received the approbation of the holy 

account, on the principle, that the Elviran Fathers dreaded lest 
the new converts from paganism should unfortunately mistake 
Christian image-worship for pagan idolatry. Discus. Amic. vol. 
ii. p. 350. Let his solution avail, as far as it may avail: the fact 
he fully acknowledges. 

II. In the early ages, then, of Christianity, not only was the 
worship of images and pictures miknown, but their very intro- 
duction into churches was expressly disallowed. 

Matters, however, did not long continue in this state. Images 
and pictures in direct opposition to the Council of Elvira, having 
at length been unadvisedly admitted on the plea that they were a 
sort of books for the unlearned, the idolatrous worship of them 
soon followed. About the end of the sixth century, a transaction 
of this nature took place at Marseilles; and, in consequence of it, 
Serenus the bishop wisely removed and destroyed the images. 
Hereupon, Pope Gregory the Great praised him for the stand 
which he had made against idolatry; but, under the fond pretext 
of their utility to the unlearned, blamed him for destroying the 
images. Wretchedly injudicious as was the latter part of this 
decision, Gregory, at least, speaks fully and expressly against 
ANT adoration either of pictures or of images. Omne manufadum 
adorari non licet: — Adorari imagines, omnibus modis, veta. — 
Gregor. Magn. Epist. lib. xi. epist. 13. aliter 9. 

III. Thus stood the question at the close of the sixth century; 
but, as might easily have been anticipated from the idolatry of the 
Massilians, the introduction of images soon led to their adoration. 
This gross abuse was strenuously opposed by the Emperor Leo 
the Isaurian; but, as it still continued to increase, his son Con- 
stantine assembled a council at Constantinople in the year 754, 
which formally condemned Siwd forbade it. 

IV. The Council of Constantinople, though it agreed in its con- 
demnation of image-worship both with the decision of Pope Gre- 
gory the Great and with the yet more ancient decision of the 
Council of Elvira, was yet, on that very account, disowned as a 
legitimate council by the innovating successors of Gregory; and 
the cause of idolatry rapidly acquired such a degree of strength, 
that the second Council of Nice, which sat in the year 7 S7^ reversed 
the decree of the Council of Constantinople, pronounced it to be 
an illegitimate council, and ordained the adoration of images in 
language which strikingly contrasts with the express prohibition 
of Pope Gregory. / confess, and agree, and receive^ and salute, 
and ABOiiE, the unpolluted image of our Lord Jesus Christ our true 
Godf and the holy image of the holy mother of God, who bore him 



ON INFALLIBlLlTr. 43 

see. Now, the Council of Constantinople did not 
receive the approbation of the holy see, while the 
second Council of Nice did receive it. Therefore, 
the Council of Constantinople being a spurious coun- 

without conception of seed, — Concil. Nicen. secund. act. i. Labb. 
Concil. Sacrosanct, vol. vii. p. 60. 

V. Having thus wholly departed from her former self, the 
Church, speaking" throug-h the mouth of a g-eneral council, had 
now decreed the orthodoxy and leg'ality of imag'e-worship : but 
this decree was not long" suffered to remain undisputed either in 
the West or in the East. 

1. In the year 794, Charlemag'ne assembled at Frankfort a 
council of three hundred bishops, who reversed the decision of the 
second Nicene Council, and who with one voice condemned the 
worship of images. 

2. Such was the solemn judgment of the West? and that of the 
East speedily followed it. For, in the year 814, the Emperor 
Leo, imitating the conduct of Charlemagne, assembled another 
council at Constantinople^ which, like that of Frankfort, rescinded 
and abolished the decrees of the second Nicene Council relative 
to the worship of images. 

VI. Thus, as both the East and the West had concurred in 
establishing image-worship, through the medium of the second 
Council of Nice; so did both the West and the East concur in 
condemning image-worship, through the medium of the Councils 
of Frankfort and Constantinople. 

But we have not yet reached the end of this strange eventful 
history of multiplied variations: we must prepare ourselves for 
yet additional changes of opinion on the part of a professedly un- 
changeable and infallible church. 

In the year 842, the Empress Theodora, during the minority 
of her son, convened yet another council at Constantinople; and 
this assembly, differing entirely from its immediate predecessor, 
reinstated the decrees of the second Nicene Council, and thus re- 
established image-worship. 

VII. Meanwhile, the Church of the Western Patriarchate con- 
tinued to maintain, that the second Nicene Council had erred in 
its decision: for, in the year 824, Louis the Meek assembled a 
Council at Paris, which confirmed the decrees of the Council of 
Frankfort, and which strictly prohibited the payment of any, even 
the smallest religious worship to images. > 

VIII. The church, however, of tlie Eastern Patriarchate, sub- 
sequent to the year 842, persevered in declaring, that the deci- 
sion of the second Nicene Council was an orthodox decision, and 
that images ought to be devoutly worshipped by all good Chris- 
tians. To establish this point, therefore, an additional council 
was held at Constantinople in the year 8r9; and the Fathers of 



44 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

cil, and as such being justly denied by its Nicene suc- 
cessor to be the seventh oecumenical council, its 
discrepance with the second Council of Nice, which 
was undoubtedly a legitimate council, affords no satis- 
factory proof that the catholic church is fallible.* 

The soundness of this argument plainly depends 
upon the legitimate existence of the alleged prero- 
gative of the pope. Before its soundness, therefore, 
can be admitted, the Latin theologians must demon- 
strate that, hy unquestionable divine rights while 
the approbation of any other see is wholly super- 
fluous^ the approbation of the see of Rome is 
necessary to constitute the validity of a general 
council. Until this position can be established, it is 
mere trijfling to deny the legitimacy of a discordant 
council, simply because it has not received the sanc- 
tion of an Italian prelate. Let it be proved, that the 
bishop of Rome possesses by divine right the power 
of a veto; and the argument now before us will be 
perfectly conclusive. But, unless this vital point shall 

that Synod decreed the undoubted obllg'ation of image -worship, 
and confirmed and renewed the decrees of the second Council of 
Nice. Their decision gave such entire satisfaction to the Greeks, 
that they ascribed it to the peculiar interposition of heaven, and 
commemorated it by a yearly festival, which they appropriately 
called the Feast of Orthodoxy, 

IX. Nor did the Latins long withhold their assent. The deci- 
sions of the Councils of Frankfort and Paris have been consigned 
to the owls and the bats; and the second Council of Nice, which 
enjoins the adoration of images, is now universally acknowledged 
to have set forth the true faith and practice of the gospel. 

X. Such have been the multiphed variations of the church, in 
regard to the single point of image -worship; and yet, says the 
learned Bishop of Meaux, The church, which professes to declare 
and to teach nothing save what she has received^ never varies; but 
heresy, on the contrary, which began by innovation, perpetually in- 
novates, and never changes its nature. — Hist, des Variat. pref. § v. 

* In using this argument, the Latin theologians are clearly jus- 
tified by the decision of Pope Gregory the Seventh, if indeed 
his authority be sufficient to decide the question. Quod nulla 
Synodus absque praecepto ejus (scil. Pap?e) debet generaHs vocari. 
Gregor. sept. diet. Epist. lib. ii. epist. 55. Labb. Concil. Sacros. 
vol. X. p. 110. 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 45 

be previously established, the argument which is con- 
fessedly built upon it must, without doubt, be alto- 
gether insecure and inconclusive.^ 

I have no need, however, to press the matter; the 
fallibility of the church may be independently de- 
monstrated, from the fact^ that the church of one age 
has contradicted the church of another age. 

In the year 1215, the fourth Council of Lateran 
decreed the truth of that doctrine oi di physical ohdiUg^ ) 
in the eucharistic bread and wine, w^hich was then \ 
first distinguished by the technical name of transub- i 
stantiationA Now this council received the full ap- 
probation of the holy see, at that time occupied by 
Pope Innocent the Third. Through it, therefore, as 
through her strictly canonical organ, the catholic 
church, according to the theory of the Latins, must 
be viewed as having spoken with the voice of un« 
doubted infallibility. 

Such being the case, since the catholic church of 
the thirteenth century has pronounced the doctrine 
of d. physical change in the consecrated elements to , 
be a true doctrine, if the catholic church be really \ 
infallible, she must invariably have taught and main- ' 
tained that identical doctrine from the very hegin- . 
ning, ^ 

But we have positive historical evidence, that, 
during at least the five first centuries, the catholic 
church, so far from teaching the doctrine of a phy- 
sical change, positively and explicitly, and even con- , 
troversially, denied the occurrence of ^wy physical \ 
change in the elements by virtue of the prayer of ; 
consecration. ' 

Therefore, since the catholic church during one 

* In order to establish the pope's, divine right to a veto, it will 
be necessary to establish his divine right to an universal controlling 
supremacy. But that this cannot be done, is fully demonstrated 
below.— See book ii. chap. 3. 

f Concil. Later, iv. can. 1. Labb. ConciL yol. xi, par. 1. p. 
143. 



46 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM 

period has denied the doctrine oi di physical change, 
while during another period she has enforced and in- 
culcated it; the catholic church, having successively- 
maintained two directly opposite dogmas, is thence 
incontrovertibly demonstrated to be not infallible. 

That the catholic church of the early ages denied 
the doctrine of 2i physical change, and that she ac- 
knowledged no change in the consecrated elements, 
save a moral change only ; a change, for instance, 
avowedly declared to be similar to that which takes 
place in a man, when, by virtue of the prayer of con- 
secration, he ceases to be a laic and becomes a priest; 
that such was the decision of the church of the early 
ages,may be easily shown, by direct evidence, beyond 
the possibility of contradiction.* The fact is invin- 
cibly established by the united testimony of Clement 
of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Atha- 
nasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret of Cyrus, Pope 
Gelasius, Facundus, Ephrem of Antioch, and others 
who might easily be enumerated. t For not only is 
d^ny physical change in the elements expressly denied, 
while the occurrence of nothing save a moral change 
is allowed ; but some of these writers, among whom 
pope Gelasius in the West, and Theodoret and 
Ephrem in the East, may be specially mentioned, 
even argue copiously and professedly against the 
identical doctrine, which in a subsequent age, the 
church, speaking through the fourth Council of La- 



* See below, book i. Chap. 4 — 8. 

t Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. i. c. 6. p. 104, 105. lib. ii. c. 2. p. 
156, 158. Tertul. adv. Marcion. lib. i. § 9. p. 155. lib. iii. § 12, 
13. p. 209. Tertul. de Anim. p. 653. Cyprian. Epist. Coecil. Ixiii. 
p. 153, 154. August, cent. Adamant, c. xii. oper. vol. vi. p. 69. 
Enarr. in Psalm, iii. xcviii. oper. vol. viii. p. 7, 397. Athanas. in 
illud evan. Quicunque dixerit verbum contra filium hominis. 
Oper. vol. i. p. 771, 772. Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism, oper. vol. 
iii. p. 369. Theodor. Dial. i. ii. oper. vol. iv. p. 17. 18, 84, 85. 
Gelas. de duab. Christ, natur. in Biblioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422. 
Facund. Defens. Concil. Chalced. lib. ix. c. 5. oper. p. 144. 
Ephrem. Antioch. cont. Eutych. apud Phot. Cod. 229. . 



ON INFALLIBILITY, 47 

teran, pronounced to be an undoubted scriptural 
verity. Nor can it be said, that these authors spoke 
only in their individual capacities, and that the catho- 
lic church must not be made answerable for their er- 
rors. Such a solution of the difficulty is, in every 
point of view, inadmissible. In the first place, the 
early church never condemned the doctrine which 
they taught and maintained ; but this she assuredly 
would have done, had she herself received and held 
the directly opposite doctrine from the very begin- 
ning. In the second place, nothing can be more evi- 
dent, from the whole turn of their language, than that 
they are not hazarding any novel speculations of their 
own, but that they are propounding the well known 
and familiar doctrine of the period during which they 
flourished. In the third place, this matter is put 
out of all doubt, both by the high rank of certain of 
the writers, and by the avowed character controver- 
sially assumed and sustained by others of them. 
When pope Gelasius undertook to write against the 
then nascent doctrine of a physical change, we may 
be morally sure that his pen set forth the universally- 
received sense of the entire catholic church; and, when 
his contempory, Theodoret, in the East harmoniously 
opposed the same doctrine of di physical change, un- 
der the specific title of the orthodox defender of the 
genuine faith, we may again be morally certain, 
that he could never have made his Orthodoxus argue 
against transubstantiation, while transubstantiation is 
defended by the \i^T^\A(t Eranistes, had he not well 
known that the catholic church would readily acknow- 
ledge Orthodoxus as her accredited champion. 

Thus it is manifest, that at two different periods 
the catholic church has taught two opposite and irre- 
concileahle doctrines. Whence it follows, that the 
catholic church cannot be infallible.* 



* I need scarcely observe, that every innovation, which contra- 
dicts the doctrine and practice of the early church, furnishes an 



48 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

4. The alleged infallibility of the church, however, 
is not only disproved by her own internal variations; 
it is yet additionally disproved by the fact, that coun- 
cils^ received as ecumenical^ and thence deemed in- 
capable of error ^have actually promulgated decrees^ 
which stand directly opposed to the unequivocal 
declarations of Holy Scripture, 

(1.) We are repeatedly assured by the voice of 
inspiration, that an oath is most imperiously binding 
upon the conscience, that those who love false oaths 
are hated by the Lord, that whatever goes forth from 
a person^s lips under the obligation of an oath must 
be kept and performed, and that an oath must be re- 
ligiously observed, even though the observation of it 
may be disadvantageous to the interest of the juror.* 

Yet, in defiance of language thus clear and explicit, 
the third Council of Lateran, which is acknowledged 
as the eleventh ecumenical council, has ventured to 
decree, that all oaths which are adverse to the utility 
of the church must in no wise be performed; but, 
on the contrary, with whatever solemnity and appa- 
rent good faith they may have been taken, they must 
be unscrupulously violated, inasmuch as they are to 
be deemed perjuries rather than oaths. t 

Thus, while God, who has been invoked as a wit- 
ness, and while Holy Scripture, which solemnly 
declares the inviolable sacredness of an oath, even 

additional proof, that the church, under whatever aspect it 
be viewed, is mutable and fallible. In the sequel we shall find so 
many of these contradictory innovations fully developed, that the 
Roman church, which in the nomenclature of the Latins is always 
identified with the catholic church, instead o^ never varying" from 
primitive antiquity, may be chiefly characterized by its singular 
love of innovation. 

* Numb. XXX. 2. Levit. xix. 12. Deut. xxiii. 23. Zechar. viii. 17. 
Psalm XV. 4. Rev. xxi. 8. 

f Non enim dicenda sunt juramenta, sed potius perjuria, qux 
contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam et sanctorum patrum veniunt in- 
stituta,— Concil. Lateran. tert. can. xvi. Labb. Concil. Sacrosanct. 
vol. X. p. 15ir. 



1 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 49 

though it be to a person's own damage, are alike 
disregarded when placed in competition with the 
power and aggrandisement of ambitious ecclesiastics: 
the obligation or non-obligation of an oath is made, 
by the third Council of Lateran, to depend solely 
upon its utility or non-utility to the interests of the 
church, as those interests shall be understood and 
explained by the governors of the church for the 
time being.^ 



* The exemplification of this extraordinary principle, in the 
case of John Huss, is well known. 

Huss had received a safe-conduct from the Emperor Sigismond. 
But the oath of that prince was adjudged, by the existing gover- 
nors of the church, to be contra utilitatem ecclesiastlcam. Whence, 
as being no oath, but rather an act of perjury, he was bound in 
duty to break it. 

Respecting the present transaction, much has been warmly 
said and written; but, it the infallibility of the church be admitted, 
I see not how we can justly blame either Sigismond or the Council 
of Constance. 

By the third Council of Lateran, the obligation of destroying 
heretics had been imposed upon the faithful; and, by the same 
ecumenical Council, the doctrine, that all oaths ^ which are against 
ecclesiastical utility, become ipso facto, null and void, had been fully 
established. — Concil. Lateran. tert, can. xxvii. xvi. Labb. Concil. 
Sacros. vol. x. p. 1522, 1517. 

Such being the case, no person who holds the infallibility of 
the church, can consistently censure either Sigismond or the 
Council of Constance. For, had they acted otherwise in the mat- 
ter of Huss, they would, by impugning the decisions of the third 
Council of Lateran, have virtually denied the infallibility of the 
church. 

I repeat it, therefore, that all who maintain the infallibility of 
the church, stand pledged to vindicate the conduct of Sigismond 
and the Council of Constance. 

In truth, they themselves stand pledged to act in the same man- 
ner, should they ever be placed in the same circumstances; nor 
is it possible for them to deny this obligation without a/50 denying 
the infallibility of the church. Let the Romanist tie himself by 
ever so solemn an oath, still, if the governors of his church pro- 
nounce that oath to be contra utilitatem ecclesiasticam, he is re- 
ligiously bound by the sixteenth canon of the third Council of 
Lateran forthwith to violate it. Should he, like an honest man, 
indignantly disclaim any such obligation, he then most assu- 
redly contradicts the decision of the eleventh ecumenical council, 

E 



50 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

(2.) So again, we are distinctly taught by an in- 
I spired apostle^ that marriage is honourable in all, 
whether the married individuals be clerks or laics: 
and, in strict accordance with this decision, the mar- 
riage of the clergy, whatever may be their special 
order, is expressly mentioned by the same apostle 
with full and entire approbation.^ 

Yet the second Council of Lateran, which is ac- 
knowledged as the tenth ecumenical council, strictly 
prohibits the marriage of ecclesiastics, down to the 
rank of the subdiaconate inclusive; and, by way of 
making the prohibition more effectual, it forbids the 
laity to hear mass performed by any priest who shall 
have dared to violate this enactment.! 

In excuse for such a determined opposition to 
God's own word, it is commonly said by the modern 
Romanists, that the enforced celibacy of the priest- 
hood is only a point of discipline, that it stands upon 
the same footing as the observance of any mere rite 
or ceremony, and that it may be enjoined or remitted 
at the good pleasure of the church. J 

So may the Romanists apologise for the infatuated 
rashness of the council; but such an apology, even 
to say nothing of its glaring insufficiency, upon their 
own shewing, is itself founded upon a gross mis- 
tatement. The second Council of Lateran prohibits 
the marriage of ecclesiastics, not on the simple ground 
of mutable and temporary expediency^ but on the 
lofty ground of immutable^ and eternal^ and inhe- 

and thus by a necessary consequence denies the church to be in- 
falUble. 

The third Council of Lateran, in short, has reduced every Ro- 
manist to the following' most unsatisfactory dilemma: — 

He must either maintain, that no oath, pronounced to be against 
ecclesiastical uiil'ty^ is binding"; or he must at once deny the in- 
fallibility of the church. 

* Heb. xiii. 4. 1 Tim. iii. 2,4, 8, 11, 12. 

f Concil. Lateran. secund. can. vi. vii. Labb. Concil. Sacrosanct, 
vol. X. p. 1003, 1004. 

\ Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 403, note. 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 51 

rent unholiness. Ecclesiastics are forbidden to 
marry, not because such prohihition^ under certain 
circumstances of the churchy may he convenient as 
a point of discipline; but because^ as the council 
assures us, it is an unworthy deed/ that those per- 
sons who ought to be the holy vessels of the Lordj 
should debase themselves so far as to become the 
vile slaves 0/ chambering and uncleanness."^ 

Thus speaks and thus argues the second Council of 
Lateran with respect to the marriage of ecclesiastics. 
The case, therefore, between Scripture and the council, 
stands in manner following: 

Scripture both allows and recom^mends the mar- 
riage of the clergy; but the council disallows and 
prohibits it. 

Scripture declares, that marriage is honourable 
in ALL men^ whether they be clerks or laics; but 
the council pronounces, that the m^arriage of the 
clergy is an unworthy deed, being in truth no 
better than a state of base thraldom to chambering 

and UNCLEANNESst. 



* Cum enim ipsi templum Dei, vasa Domini, sacrarium Spiritus 
Sancti, debeant et esse et dici: ixdigxuzm est eos cubilibus et 
ixMu^DiciTiis deservire. — Concil. Lateran. secund. can. vl. Labb. 
Concil. Sacrosanct, vol. x. p. 1003. 

f Pope Gregory the Seventh had already caused the marriag-e 
of the clergy to be prohibited in the thirteenth canon of the first 
Roman Council, which v/as convened in the year 10T4. — See 
Labb. Concil. Sacrosanct, vol. x. p. 326-328. 

The effect produced by this inhibition is too remarkable to be 
pretermitted in silence. 

When it was published by the papal legates in Germany, the 
clergy, so far from peaceably submitting, appealed to scripture, 
and CHARGED Gregory axd his cou2^cil with cotradicti^^g 
St. Paul. 

The same opposition, on the same ground, was made also at 
Milan; and the only individual who there yielded obedience was 
Luitprand. 

How the charge of coxtradictiox to St. Paul can be re- 
moved, I do not distinctly perceive. — See Lamb. Schasnaburg. 
Hist. German. A. D. 1074. p. 201. Sigebert. Gembloc. Chron. A. 
D.. 1074. Matt. Paris in Gulielm. I. Aventin, Annal. Boiord, lib. 



\ 



52 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

Hence it is evident, that in each of these two cases, 
the decisions of ecumenical councils have directly 
contradicted the decisions of Scripture ; and hence 
also it is evident, that, by the indisputable fact of 
this direct contradictoriness, we are irresistibly driven 
to the following very unpleasant alternative. 

If the church, speaking through an ecumenical 
council, be infallible, then the decisions of Holy Scrip- 
ture are erroneous ; and, conversely, if the decisions 
of Holy Scripture be essential truth, then the church, 
speaking through an ecumenical council, is undoubt- 
edly fallible. 

From this alternative there is no possibility of 
evasion. Holy Scripture says one thing, and the 
second and third Councils of Lateran say another 
thing; therefore Holy Scripture cannot stand with 
the second and third Councils of Lateran. 

II. I have rested my entire argument upon naked 
facts; and these facts are, that the church both in 
her doctrine and in her practice has directly con- 
tradicted herself and likewise that the church both 
in her doctrine and in her practice ^ has directly 
contradicted the inspired decisions of Holy Scrip- 
ture, Such being the case, it is utterly impossible 
that the church should be infallible. The fond notion 
of her perfect freedom from all error is confuted by 
the invincible evidence oi naked facts; and, against 
naked facts, no mere abstract reasoning, however 
plausible and ingenious, can be allowed to stand good. 

Here, then, I might fairly close the present dis- 
cussion ; yet, as I would not appear deficient in re- 
spect to the exemplary prelate of Aire, I shall notice, 
though I deem it a work of supererogation, the argu- 
ments which he has advanced. 

1. The bishop contends, that, from the very reason 
of the thing, Christ must have left us some infallible 

V. p. 564, cited in Stillingfleet's Discourse on the Church of 
Rome, chap. v. p. 369. 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 53 

mode of determining the truth, and thereby of pre- 
serving and maintaining ecclesiastical unity. Whence 
he concludes, that Christ actually has left us this . 
requisite infallible mode of determination. 

In matters which respect the Deity, I am not very 
fond of the adventurous a priori reasoning adopted 
by the bishop. It is dangerous to argue that God 
has done what we conceive he 7nust have done. Had 
I discovered the actual existence of a living infallible 
umpire in points of faith and practice, I should 
have felt assured that such a dispensation of the truth 
was most wise and most fitting; but I should hesitate 
to maintain with the bishop, that this dispensation 
must needs actually exist, because to myself it ab- 
stractedly appeared most fitting and most wise. 

This latter method of reasoning is, I think, too 
insecure to be adopted by any prudent theologian; 
and of its danger we have recently had a very striking 
example. The respectable bishop of Aire, simply 
from his own private view of the divine attributes, 
has ventured to maintain, that infallibility Tnust 
reside in the catholic *church. Yet, if we can submit/ 
to introduce into dogmatical theology the rational r 
Newtonian principle of experiment^ we shall find the / 
direct opposite of the bishop's conclusion established ] 
by naked facts. 

2, The bishop further argues in favour of the in- 
fallibility of the church, from the interpretation which 
he himself puts upon various promises and expres- 
sions of our blessed Saviour. 

On the one side we have facts; on the other side 
we have/Ae bishop^ s proposed interpretation of our 
Saviour^ s language. That our Lord made certain 
promises and employed certain expressions, no per- 
son will deny; but, when the bishop's interpretation 
of his language is found to be contradicted hy facts ^ 
I see not what conclusion we can rationally draw, 
save that the interpretation is erroneous. Christ him- 
self cannot err; but it is very possible that the par- 
E 2 



54 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

tisan of a particular set of opinions may misapprehend 
his meaning. 

The bishop, be it observed, does not argue from 
our Lord's promises and expressions themselves^ 
but from his own interpretation of those promises 
and expressions. Now, we protestants give an en- 
tirely different exposition of them; and, by our 
exposition, (into which it is assuredly quite irrele- 
vant to enter,) no such result, as the infallibility of 
the church and the supremacy of the see of Rome, is 
produced. 

Doubtless, the bishop may object to our interpre- 
tation, just diS we object to his. But, whether we be 
right or wrong in our view of Christ's language, we 
at least have this advantage over the bishop. His 
interpretation is confuted by facts; our interpretation 
corresponds with them. 

3. The bishop lastly argues, that the catholic church, 
which he would confine within the pale of the west- 
ern Latin church, cannot err in her doctrines, because 
they have regularly descended to her, step by step, 
from the apostles themselves, whose inspired infal- 
libility is acknowledged by all. 

This argument is an extension of the well-known 
argument from /;re5crzp^/on, employed so success- 
fully by Irenseus and'Tertullian in the second cen- 
tury. 

Doctrines, they contend, received through the 
medium of only two or three links from the apos^es 
themselves, and with one consent declared by all the 
various churches then in existence to have been thus 
received, cannot be false. Thus, for instance, Irenaeus, 
himself the pupil of Polycarp the disciple of St. John, 
bears witness to the fact, that, in his time, all the 
churches in the world held the doctrine of our Lord's 
divinity; each professing to have received it, through 
the medium of one or two or three links, from the 
apostles ; and his testimony is corroborated by Hege- 
sippus, who, about the middle of the second century, 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 55 

travelled from Asia to Rome, and found the same 
system of doctrine uniformly established in every 
church. Facts of this description form the basis of 
the reasoning adopted by Irenasus and Tertullian ; 
and the conclusion which they deduce from it is, the 
moral impossibility of the catholic system, of the- 
ologlf heing erroneous.^ 

Such is the argument, as managed by those two 
ancient fathers; but, as employed by the bishop of 
Aire, it is a mere fallacy, the detection of which is 
not very difficult. 

What was a very good argument in the second 
century, when the various allied branches of the 
catholic church universally symbolized in doctrine, 
and when no church was separated from the apostles 
by more than one or two or three links, is but a very 
sorry argument in the nineteenth century, when we 
are separated from the apostles by some sixty links of 
a chain, which extends through a long period of dark- 
ness and violence and superstition. That various 
innovations ivould be introduced in the course of 
such a period, we might well, from the cumulative 
nature of tradition, reasonably anticipate; that various 
innovations have been introduced in the course of 
that period, we learn most incontrovertibly from 
documents yet extant. The argument from prescrip- 
tion^ so far (we will say) as it respects the nature of 
God and of Christ, the matters specially set forth in 
the ancient symbols of the church, is just as strong 
now as it was in the days of Irenseus and Tertul- 
lian; because we still possess their writings; and, 
consequently, for all controversial purposes with 
heretics, ice occupy the identical place which they 
occupied. But the argument from prescription, as 
employed in the nineteenth century for the purpose 



* Iren. adv. hser. lib. i. c. 2, 3. lib. iii. c. 1, 3, 4. Heg-esip. Apud. 
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iv. c. 21. Tertull. de prsescript. adv. hxer. 
oper. p. 95-117. 



56 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

of establishing those various unscriptural tenets which 
the bishop propounds seriatitn as indispensable terms 
of communion with the church of Rome, is certainly- 
inconclusive; because, by no mechanism, can the chain 
be extended from the present age to the age of the 
apostles. Faithful history will, for the most part, 
enable us to ascertain the very times of their%itrO- 
duction; and, if in any case we cannot specify the 
absolutely precise era (for the growth of error is fre- 
quently gradual), we can at least point out the period 
when no such tenets existed. Some of them, no 
doubt, are of considerable antiquity: but, let their 
antiquity be what it may, if they originated subse- 
quently to the apostolic age, the connecting chain is 
effectually broken; and they stand forth as convicted 
novelties. Whatever is firsts is true; whatever is 
more recent, is spurious. The argument from pre- 
scription, in the hands of Irenseus and Tertullian, 
invincibly establishes the catholic doctrines of Christ's 
godhead and the Trinity; because it clearly connects 
them with the inspired apostolic college. But the 
argument from prescription, in the hands of the 
bishop of Aire, fails of establishing the various tenets 
for which he so eagerly contends; because it wholly 
fails of connecting them with the infallible apostolic 
college, and thence of necessity leaves them branded 
with the stigma of detected innovation. 

III. How then, it may be asked, in these latter 
days of the world, are we to settle disputed points of 
doctrine and practice? How are we to avoid those 
divisions, which the bishop triumphantly exhibits as 
the opprobrium of the reformation? 

An answer, not altogether unsatisfactory, may, I 
think, be given to this important question, without 
calling in the aid either of a pope or of a council. 

1. As the Bible is confessedly the revealed will of 
God, and as no one pretends that we possess any 
other written, and therefore any other certain, reve- 
lation, me must evidently begin with rejecting every 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 57 

doctrine and every practice built upon such doctrine, 
which have clearly no foundation in Holy Scripture. 

This process will at once sweep aw^ay a large heap 
of mere unathorized innovations, which lamentably 
encumber the church of Rome, and which assuredly 
will never be adopted by those who take their divinity 
from the Bible alone. 

2. When sundry innovations have been thus re- 
moved, as supported by no scriptural authority, other 
certain tenets will still remain, which, unlike the last, 
profess to be built upon the sure foundation of God's 
own inspired word. 

Here our business is obviously reduced to a point 
of interpretation; and, as very different expositions 
may be given of the same passage, the question arises, 
who is to determine which exposition is the truth? 

(1.) The bishop of Aire will doubtless say; Con- 
sult the catholic churchy the sole judge and deposito- 
ry of the true faith. 

This may be very good advice in the abstract; but 
the difficulty is to explain how such advice must be 
followed. Had the church never varied, we might 
have had some reasonable expectation of success; but, 
unhappily, as it is well remarked by the deeply 
learned Chillingworth, there have been popes against 
popes^ councils against councils ; councils confirm- 
ed by popes against councils confirmed by popes; 
the church of some ages against the church of 
other ages,^ Under such circumstances, therefore, 
the bishop must not only advise us to consult the 
catholic church; but he must also specify, giving rea- 
sons for his specification, the exact time when the 
catholic church is to be consulted. 

(2.) Others, perhaps, will exhort us to call in 
the right of private judgment, which has often been 
described more eloquently than wisely, as a main 
principle of protestantism, and which the bishop of 

* Chilling'wortli's Relig. of Protest, chap. iii. p. 147. 



58 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

Aire not unjustly reprobates as leading to nothing 
but confusion. 

Of this principle, as exhibited by the bishop, and 
not unfrequently as exhibited also by unwary pro- 
testants, I entertain not a much higher opinion than 
the bishop himself does. The exercise of insulated 
private judgment, which in effect is the abuse of 
legitimate private judgment, must clearly convert 
the church catholic into a perfect Babel; and, 
although I deny the right of such private judgment 
to be a principle either of sound protestantism in 
general, or of the Anglican church in particular, yet 
I regret to say, that it has much too often been exer- 
cised, to the scandal of all sober men, and to the 
unspeakable detriment of genuine religion. 

Having thus fairly stated my own sentiments, I 
shall explain what I conceive to be the difference 
between legitimate private judgment and illegiti- 
mate private judgm^ent. 

To a certain extent the bishop of Aire will allow, 
that private judgment m,ust be exercised. Thus, 
I cannot read his lordship's very able work and 
come to a conclusion upon it, without so far exer- 
cising private judgment; and the very tenor of the 
whole composition implies, that private judgment in 
the choice of their religion will be exercised by those 
English travellers, for whose especial benefit it seems 
to have been written. Thus, likewise, we shall 
introduce an universal scepticism, if we deny the 
right of forming a private judgment upon perfectly 
unambiguous propositions. No authoritative expla- 
nation can throw any additional light upon the seve- 
ral prohibitions of murder and theft and adultery, 
which occur in Holy Scripture. We read those pro- 
hibitions in the sacred volume; we involuntarily 
exercise our private judgment upon their import; 
and, by its mere simple exercise alone, we are all 
brought, without any need of inquiring the sense of 
the church, to one and the same interpretation. In 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 59 

these matters, and in various others which might 
easily be specified, I hold private judgment lo be 
strictly legitimate; and I feel persuaded that the 
bishop of Aire will not disagree with me. 

But, although there is such a thing as legitimate 
private judgment in matters of religion, there doubt- 
less is such a thing also as illegitim^ate private judg- 
ment. Now this last modification I would define to 
be private judgment^ in the interpretation of 
litigated passages of Scripture, exercised after a 
perfectly independent or insulated manner. 

Against this exercise of private judgment, which 
is a lamentable abuse of the reformation, all prudent 
and judicious men must strenuously protest. It 
assuredly can only be the fruitful parent of discord 
and error. For if, without using those means of 
ascertaining the truth which God has put into our 
hands, this man and that man, after a simple inspection 
of a litigated text, shall dogmatically and independ- 
ently pronounce that such or such an interpretation 
m^ust set forth its true meaning; we shall doubtless 
have small prospect of ever arriving at a reasonable 
certainty in regard to the mind of Scripture. The 
absurdity of such a proceeding is self-evident; for, if 
each individual, disdaining all extrinsic aid, is to be 
his own independent expositor, we may well nigh 
have as many expositions of litigated texts, as there 
exist rash and ignorant and self-opinionated individ- 
uals; and, accordingly, we must not dissemble, that, 
from the illegitimate exercise oi insulated private 
judgment, sects, rivalling each other in presumptuous 
unscriptural folly, have sprung up like mushrooms. 
Thus acted not the wise reformers of the church of 
England. I greatly mistake if, in any one instance, 
they can be shown to have exercised that insulated 
private judgment which I agree with the bishop 
in heartily reprobating. In fact, they possessed 
far too much theological learning, and far too much 



60 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

sound intellect, to fall into the palpable error now 
before us. 

(3.) Omitting then the mere dogmatism of the 
Latin church on the one hand, and the wanton 
exercise of illegitimate private judgment on the 
other hand, the practice of those venerable and pro- 
found theologians, who presided over the reformation 
of the Anglican church, will teach us, that the most 
rational mode of determining differences is a recur- 
rence to first principles^ or an appeal to that 
primitive church which ivas nearest to the times of 
the apostles. 

Certainly the inspired apostles of the Lord must 
have fully known the genuine doctrines of Christianity. 
What was the true sense of the written word, on all 
important points, they would assuredly explain to 
their immediate disciples. Their conversations and 
their compositions could not disagree. Hence their 
immediate disciples, thus carefully taught and cate- 
chized, would teach and maintain the same doctrinal 
system that the apostles taught and maintained. In 
process of time, error and corruption might doubtless 
creep into the church; but the introduction of error 
is not instantaneous; experience shows its progress to 
be gradual. On these perfectly intelligible grounds, 
some considerable period must have elapsed, before 
any material inroad was made into the apostolic 
doctrine within the pale of the catholic church her- 
self; and a yet longer period must have been evolv- 
ed, before any considerable doctrinal error became 
I the prevailing opinion, Polycarp of Smj'rna w^as a 
I hearer of the apostles, and especially of St. John, who 
f seems, through God V providence, to have been pre- 
served alive after all his brethren, for the purpose of 
authoritatively determining the truth against the 
growing heresies of the times. Irenasus of Lyons 
was the scholar of Polycarp, the disciple of St. John ; 
and from him he professed, in common w4th all the 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 61 

churches of proconsular Asia, to have received his 
theology. Justin Martyr calls himself a disciple of 
the apostles; by which, according to the phraseology 
of the day, we must understand him to have been a 
pupil of those apostolical men who were placed in the 
several churches by the apostles themselves; and, ac- 
cordingly, since he flourished only about forty years 
after the death of St. John, he must, by the very 
necessity of chronology, have conversed with the 
scholars of the apostles. Clement .of Alexandria 
professed to be the pupil of Pantenus, who by some 
of the ancients is said to have been a disciple of the 
apostles, and who doubtless had heard the fathers 
denominated apostolical. Contemporary with Clem- 
ent was Tertullian ; and to these succeeded Origen 
and Cyprian; one generation of early teachers still 
following another.^ 

The several writers here enumerated, though but 
few out of many, form a chain which reaches up to 
St. John and the apostles. Hence, if we can be 
morally certain of any thing, we may be sure, that, 
in their exposition of Scripture, so far as the great 
leading doctrines of Christianity are concerned, they 
would proceed, either on direct apostolic authority, 
or at least according to the then universally known 

* Clement of Alexandria, who flourished toward the latter end 
of the second century, expressly tells us, that some of the disci- 
ples of Peter and James, and John and Paul, had lived even down 
to this time, regularly conveying to that generation, like sons 
from their fathers, the true apostolic doctrine. — Clem. Alex. 
Strom, lib. i. p. 274, 275. Colon. 1688. — In a similar manner 
Justin Martyr declares, that he and the men of his own eccle- 
siastical generation had been instructed, in the joint worship of 
the Father and the Son and the prophetic Spirit, by the catechists 
of the generation which preceded him, and which itself must 
inevitably have conversed with St. John. — Justin. Apol. i. vulg. 
ii. oper. p 43. Sylburg. 1593. — Clement flourished about forty 
years later than Justin. Hence, on chronological principles, 
Clement, I imagine, must in his youth have conversed with the 
apostolical men whom he notices ; just as his partial contempo- 
rary Irenseus describes himself to have conversed with Polycarp. 
— ^Iren. adv. hser. lib. iii. c. 3. § 3. 

F 



62 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

analogy of apostolic faith. Can we believe, for 
instance, if John and the apostles had diligently- 
taught the bare humanity of Christ and the imper- 
sonal unity of the Godhead, that their immediate 
disciples, and the scholars of their immediate disci- 
ples, would agree in expounding a variety of texts 
after the precise manner in which they are expounded 
by the Trinitarian ? Would not the very reverse 
have proved to be the case? Should we not have 
found all these litigated texts distinctly and unani- 
mously interpreted by them, not after the mode 
adopted by the modern trinitarian, but after some 
such mode as that which is recommended by the 
modern anti-trinitarian?* 

Here then, I apprehend, we have a rationally satis- 
factory method of determining those differences in 
regard to the import of Scripture, which must ever 
spring up from the illegitimate use of insulated 
private judgment. 

Where, in her yet existing documents, the primi- 
tive church is explicit, we must, so far as I can judge, 
on the principles of right reason, submit ourselves 
to her decision ; where she is silent or indefinite or 
ambiguous, we must, I fear, be content still mutually 
to differ in opinion. 

* On this topic I venture to speak with positiveness and 
decision. From my own personal examination I can attest, that 
the passages in the New Testament, htigated by trinitarians and 
an ti -trinitarian s, are constantly understood and interpreted by 
the fathers of the three first centuries in the same manner as they 
are now understood and interpreted by modern trinitarians. The 
work, denominated The New Testament in an improved version, is 
the most perfect example of the illegitimate exercise of insulated 
private judgment with which I am acquainted. Totally opposing 
itself to the decisions of the catholic church nearest to the times 
of the apostles, it exhibits interpretations of the litigated texts, 
framed upon the mere independent dogmata of Dr. Priestley and 
Mr. Belsbam, but altogether unknown to the ecclesiastics of the 
three first centuries. I adduce this production, to exemplify 
what I mean by the illegitimate use of insulated private judgment. 
If we ask a reason, why the litigated texts are thus expounded, 
no answer can be giveuj save the good pleasure of the editor. 



ON INFALLIBILITY. 63 

It will readily be perceived, that the bishop's mode 
of settling differences varies from mine in the import- 
ant article of extension. 

He would carry tKecKain down to the present time: 
/deem it more prudent to stop in the primitive ages. 

Perhaps it may be asked, where I would draw the 
line? To this captious, but fallacious, que^stion, I 
judge it sufficient to give the following answer : — 

Where a writer propounds a doctrine which rests 
not upon the firm basis of Scripture, I would reject it 
as a commandment of men, let the writer flourish 
when he may; and, where a later writer differs from 
an earlier writer in his exposition of a litigated doc- 
trinal text, I should generally deem the authority of 
the earlier writer preferable, inasmuch as he stands 
nearer to the fountain-head of apostolic purity. 

Such a method of checking the license of private 
judgment, and of attaining to the truth with as much 
moral certainty as God has been pleased to allow, 
seems, in the main, unobjectionable. To the ancient 
ecclesiastical writers I ascribe not the infallibility of 
inspiration; but, as evidences of the doctrine of the 
primitive church, and thence ultimately as evidences 
also of the doctrine of the inspired apostles and of 
our Lord himself, they may justly be deemed in 
valuable. 



64 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 



CHAPTER TIL 

The Difficulties of Romanism in regard to tra- 
dition and the doctrinal Instruction of the 
Church. 

The bishop of Aire^s remarks on the authority of 
tradition and on the doctrinal instruction of the 
church, I have been led, by the necessary course of 
my argument, in a great measure to anticipate; my 
few additional observations upon them will not, 
therefore, extend to any very great length.* 

No accurate investigator can read the bishop's 
remarks on these topics, without being struck with 
the singular fallacies which pervade them. 

I. The Latin church, as we all know, has handed 
down to the present time various doctrines and 
various practices. Some of these are received by 
protestants ; others of them are rejected. Now this 
eclectic process is censured by the bishop: and he 
requires us, as we value the praise of consistency, 
either to receive the whole mass or to reject the whole 
mass.t 

His argument, when thrown into a regular form, 
w^ill run, I apprehend, as follows. 

The Latin church has handed down to the present 
time the several doctrines of the trinity, the Godhead 
of Christ, the incarnation, the atonement, transubst^n- 
tiation, purgatory, and the invocation of the^saints. 
But protestants receive the doctrines of the trinity, 
the Godhead of Christ, the incarnation, and the 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. iv. v. 
f Discuss. Amicp vol. i. p. 196« 



ON TRADITION- 65 

atonement: therefore they are bound also to re- 
ceive transubstantiation, purgatory, and the invoca- 
tion of the saints. 

Such is the bishop's argument ; but I am unable to 
discover the link by which he binds his conclusion to 
his premises. 

The first class of doctrines we certainly receive; 
because we find them in Scripture, both according to 
its natural interpretation, and as it was invariably 
understood by the primitive church nearest to the 
times of the apostles: the second class of doctrines 
we certainly reject; because we find them neither ( 
in Scripture nor in the creed of the earliest church, j 
Under such circumstances, because weBiffer from the^ 
modern Latin church on some points, we discern no 
reason why we should differ from her on all points. 
It is to her praise that she has faithfully handed down 
the great essential doctrines of our common Chris- 
tianity : it is to her dispraise that, from a higher or 
lower comparative antiquity, she has also handed 
down an accumulated mass of wood and hay and stub- 
ble.* Because we receive the Jormery are we to be 
censured as inconsistent on the ground of our reject- 
ing the latter? I see not the justice of the charge. 
It tacitly implies, that the two classes of doctrines j 
rest upon the same authority. But here is the fal- 
lacy: they do not rest upon the same authority. 

II. The bishop quarrels with the principle of our 
English church, that Holi/ Scripture containeth all 
things necessary to salvation; so that^ whatsoever 
is not read therein^ nor may he proved thereby j is 
not to he required of any man, that it should be 
believed as an article of the faith, or be thought 
requisite or necessary to salvation,\ 

With this principle the bishop quarrels; and he 
thinks that he can reduce us to an absurdity, not to 
say a contradiction. Our article, we are told, while 

* 1 Corinth, iii. 12. f Art. vi. 

F 2 



66 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

it claims to make Scripture its special basis, flatly 
contradicts Scripture itself. For, in the second 
Epistle to the Thessalonians, the observance of ver- 
bal, no less than of written, tradition is enjoined by 
St. Paul.* But the article maintains, that written 
tradition, as contained in Holy Scripture, is alone to 
be received. 

I am unable to discover the contradiction alleged 
by the bishop. He seems to forget that our article 
respects the Bible as it stood in the sixteenth century^ 
not as it stood when St. Paul addressed his second 
Epistle to the Thessalonians. Now, at the time 
when that epistle was written, the canon of the New 
Testament was so far from being completed, that most 
probably not one of the four gospels, most certainly 
not all the four gospels, had been published. At the 
same period also, the Acts of the Apostles, the Re- 
velation, the Epistles to the Corinthians, and Romans, 
and Colossians, and Ephesians, and Hebrews, and 
Timothy and Philemon, by St. Paul; the second Epis- 
tle by St. Peter, the Epistle by St. James, and the 
three Epistles by St. John, were not in existence. In 
short, when St. Paul charged the Thessalonians to 
hold the traditions which they had been taughtj 
whether by word or by his epistle, the canon of the 
New Testament, even upon the most liberal allowance, 
could not have contained more than the following 
books: the Gospel of St. Matthew, the first Epistle 
of St. Peter, the Epistle to the Galatians, the two 
Epistles to the Thessalonians, the Epistle to Titus, 
and the Epistle of Jude. This being the case, it is 
no very chimerical supposition, that the matters, ver- 
bally delivered by St. Paul, were afterward, in the 
course of God's providence, committed to faithful 
writing. Whence it would follow, that the position 
contained in the sixth article of the Anglican church, 
though not strictly true when the apostle wrote his 

* 2 Thess. ii. 15. iii. 6. 



ON TRADITION. 67 

second letter to the Thessalonians, may yet in the six- 
teenth century have been an incontrovertible verity. 

After all, I doubt not that the church of England 
will readily make a large concession to the bishop of 
Aire. Notwithstanding the very different states of 
the canon at the present day, and at the time when 
the second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written, 
let his lordship prove that the traditions of the mo- 
dern Latin church are the identical verbal traditions 
of St. Paul; and the Anglican church, I feel assured, 
will forthwith receive them. 

III. In the judgment of the bishop, tradition is of 
such vital importance, that the very canon of Scrip- 
ture itself depends upon it. By renouncing, there- 
fore, the tradition of the Latin church, we effectively 
invalidate the authority of the canon of Scripture. 

From the frequency and confidence with which 
this objection is adduced, one might almost imagine, 
that our Latin brethren deemed us altogether ignorant 
of the very existence of the early ecclesiastical 
writers. For the settling of the canon, we resort, 
not to the naked dogmatical authority of the see of 
Rome, but to the sufficient evidence borne to that ef- 
fect in the yet existing documents of the primitive 
church. Were the candlestick of the Roman angel 
removed to-morrow, the totally independent testimo- 
ny, on which the English church receives the canon, 
would remain altogether unaffected. 



68 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 



CHAPTER IV. 

The Difficulties of Eomanism in respect to the 
Doctrine of Transubstantiation. 

The disagreement between the church of England 
and the church of Rome, in regard to the doctrine of 
the holy Eucharist, chiefly respects the supposed pro- 
cess denominated transubstantiation. On this point, 
the church of England teaches that the consecrated 
bread and wine symbolically represent the body and 
blood of our Saviour Christ; while the church of 
Rome contends, that they are actually so transmuted 
in their essential qualities, as to cease being any 
longer literal bread and wine, and as henceforth to 
become his strictly literal and proper, and substantial 
and material flesh and blood. Here, if I mistake not, 
is the main disagreement between the two churches. 
With respect to the doctrine of the real presence, 
they both hold it; but, as we might naturally antici- 
pate, it severally assumes in those two communions 
its specific colour from the opinions with which it is 
severally connected. The church of England be- 
lieves Christ to be really, though spiritually, present 
with all devout and faithful communicants; so that, 
although his body and blood be verily and indeed^ 
for every saving and beneficial purpose, taken and 
received by the faithful in the Lord^s supper; yet 
the body of Christ is given and taken and eaten 
in the holy supper only after an heavenly and 
spiritual manner^ the mean whereby it is so re- 
ceived and eaten being faith,^ On the other hand, 

* Church Catech. on the Euch. and Art. xxviii. 



ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 69 

the church of Rome believes Christ to be not only 
really, but also corporeally and materially, present in 
the Eucharist; whence of necessity she maintains, 
that every recipient, good or bad, faithful or unfaith- 
ful, partakes of the proper and literal flesh and blood 
of the glorified Saviour. 

In regard then to the real presence, the two 
churches differ only in their opinions respecting the 
mode; but, in regard to the change produced in the 
bread and wine by the words of consecration, their 
disagreement is utterly irreconcileable, A Tuoral 
change the Anglican church allows to be produced; 
the bread and wine ceasing to be common bread and 
wine, and henceforth being sanctified and set apart 
to the most solemn office of our religion; so that to 
reserve and to use the consecrated elements, for any 
mere secular purposes, were sacrilege and profana- 
tion of the most revolting description. But any such 
physical change, as that which our Latin brethren 
call transubstantiatiouj she most certainly denies 
altogether. Hence, as I have already observed, the 
disagreement between the two churches mainly 
respects the alleged process thus denominated. 

While arguing upon this subject, or while inci- 
dentally mentioning it, some persons, I regret to say, 
have been far too copious in the use of those unseemly 
terms, absurdity and impossibility. To such lan- 
guage the least objection is its reprehensible want of 
good manners: a much more serious objection is the 
tone of presumptuous loftiness which pervades it, and 
which (so far as I can judge) is wholly unbefitting 
a creature of very narrow faculties. Certainly, God 
will do nothing absurd, and can do nothing impossi- 
ble; but it does not, therefore, exactly follow, that 
our view of things should be always perfectly correct 
and wholly free from misapprehension. Contradic- 
tions we may easily /a/zcy, where in truth there are 
none. Hence, before we venture to pronounce any 
particular doctrine a contradiction, we must be sure 



70 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

that we perfectly understand the nature of the matter 
propounded in that doctrine; for, otherwise, the 
contradiction may not be in the matter itself^ but in 
our mode of conceiving it. In regard to myself, as 
my consciously finite intellect claims not to be an 
universal measure of congruities and possibilities, I 
deem it both more wise and more decorous to refrain 
from assailing the doctrine of transubstantiation on 
the ground of its alleged absurdity or contradictori- 
ness or impossibility. 

By such a mode of attack, we in reality quit the 
true field of rational and satisfactory argument. The 
doctrine of transubstantiation, like the doctrine of the 
trinity, is a question, not of abstract reasoning, but 
of pure evidence. We believe the revelation of God 
to be essential and unerring truth. Our business, 
therefore, most plainly is, not to discuss the abstract 
absurdity and the imagined contradictoriness of 
transubstantiation, but to inquire, according to the 
best means which we possess, whether it be indeed 
a doctrine of Holy Scripture. If sufficient evidence 
shall determine such to be the case, we may be sure 
that the doctrine is neither absurd nor contradictory: 
if the evidence be insufficient, we require not the aid 
of irrelevant abstract reasoning, for we then reject 
the doctrine because we have no sufficient evidence 
of its truth. Receiving the Scripture as the infalli- 
ble word of God, and prepared with entire prostra- 
tion of mind to admit his declarations, I shall ever 
contend, that the doctrine of transubstantiation, like 
the doctrine of the trinity, is a question of pure 
evidence. 

I. I greatly incline to think, that, even inde- 
pendently of other sources of information, we may, 
by the aid of Scripture alone, arrive at a moral cer- 
tainty, that the doctrine of transubstantiation, as 
received in the Latin church, must needs be erro- 
neous. For, if it can be shown, not only that such 
doctrine is incongruous with the general analogy of 



ON TKANSUBSTANTIATION. 71 

sacred tropical language, but also that it is irrecon- 
cilable with the very terms in which the institution 
of the Eucharist has been recorded, and that it 
directly contradicts other inspired declarations; the 
erroneousness of the doctrine will, I apprehend, have 
been demonstrated with as much moral certainty as 
the nature of unmathematical evidence can admit. 

1. In the abstract, the expressions. This is my 
body^ and this is my bloody are doubtless capable, 
either of the interpretation put upon them by the 
church of England, or of the interpretation put upon 
them by the church of Rome: for, as no one will 
deny, that, on the strictest principles of grammar, 
they m.ay be understood literally; so no one, who is 
in the least degree conversant with the phraseology 
of Scripture, can deny that, on the strictest princi- 
ples of rhetoric, they m^ay be understood figuratively. 
Hence, so far as this part of the argument is con- 
cerned, the only question is, which mode of expo- 
sition best accords with the general analogy of sacred 
tropical language, and whether on any legitimate 
ground the Latin exposition can be admitted con- 
sistently with such analogy. 

I need scarcely remark, that the Bible abounds 
with expressions, which by common consent are 
allowed to be plainly metaphorical. God is said to 
be a sun, and a shield; Christ styles himself a vine, 
and a door, and a loay. Such language we instinc- 
tively perceive to be tropical: no one contends that 
it ought to be understood literally. Now, to the 
catholic of the Anglican church, these expressions 
appear strictly analogical to the expressions, This is 
m.y body, and this is m>y blood. Hence he conceives, 
that all the several expressions ought to be interpreted 
homogeneously. If the expressions. This is m^y 
body, and this is my blood, must needs be under- 
stood literally ; then, so far as he can discern, the 
various apparently analogical expressions, / am, a 
vine, and I am, a door, and I am a ivay^ must needs 



72 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

be understood literally also. And, conversely, if the 
latter set of expressions must needs be understood 
figuratively; then, so far as he can perceive, homo- 
geneity plainly requires the figurative exposition also 
of the former set of expressions. Unless this first 
principle of interpretation be admitted, he appre- 
hends, that the exposition of Scripture becomes 
altogether arbitrary. Christ does not more explicitly 
say, of the bread and the wine, This is my body, and 
this is my blood, than St. Paul says of the rock, 
whereof the Israelites drank in in the wilderness. 
The rock loas Christ,^ If, therefore, the catholic 
of the Roman church may be allowed, simply because 
it suits his humour, to interpret the two former 
expressions literally; it is difficult to say, why the 
catholic of the English church must not be allowed, 
should it haply suit his pleasure, to interpret the lat- 
ter expression literally also. For, if once we depart 
from the fixed principle of homogeneous interpreta- 
tion, a door is opened to the wildest expository licen- 
tiousness; and the Bible itself becomes a field, upon 
which every theological adventurer must be allowed 
to try his unholy experiments. 

The principle of homogeneity , then, is the basis 
of the exposition advocated by the church of Eng- 
land; while the principle of arbitrary variation is 
the basis of the exposition advocated by the church 
of Rome. If the soundness of the latter principle be 
admitted, the Roman catholic may still be able to 
plead this soundness in favour of his own opinion; 
but, if the soundness of the former principle be 
absolutely undeniable, then an easy victory awaits 
the Anglican catholic; for, unless the figurative 
language of Scripture be altogether interpreted 
literally, the literal interpretation of the expressions. 
This is my body, and this my blood, cannot but be 
untenable. 

* Compare Matt. xxxi. 26, 28, with 1 Corinth, x. 4. 



ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 73 

2. In his doubts as to the tenability of the Latin 
interpretation, the catholic of the Anglican church is 
confirmed by the very terms in which the institution 
of the Eucharist has been recorded. 

The Roman catholic builds much upon the alleged 
expressness of our Lord^s phraseology, This is my 
body J and this is my blood; whence he infers, that 
the elements, after consecration, altogether cease to 
be literal bread and literal wine, and that they be- 
come henceforth the literal flesh and literal blood of 
our Saviour Christ. 

Now, to the Anglican* catholic such an interpreta- 
tion seems plainly at variance with the terms in 
which the institution of the Eucharist has been 
recorded both by St. Matthew^ and by St, Paul. 

(1.) At the institution of the Eucharist, as recorded 
by St. Matthew, Christ is represented as saying of the 
liquor contained in the cup subsequent to its conse- 
cration, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit 
of the vineJ^ 

Such are the words of the Lord himself. What 
then was the specific nature of the fluid contained in 
the cup after this first consecration of the elements? 
The Roman catholic assures us, that the liquor 
was not literal wine; on the contrary, he maintains 
that it was literal human blood. Christ, however, 
though he had previously said of that liquor, this 
is my bloody immediately afterward most abundantly 
explains the true meaning of his language, by adding, 
I ivill not drink henceforth of this fruit of the 
vine. 

Here we have our Lord^s own explanation of his 
own language. The liquor, which he had called his 
blood, he still denominates, even after consecration, 
THIS fruit or offspring of the vine. 

If, then, the liquor, even after consecration, was 
still the ofispring of the vine; the Anglican catholic 

♦ Matt. xxvi. 29. 

G 



74 DIFFICULTIES OF R0MANIS3I 

is unable to comprehend how that identical h*quor can 
have been literal human blood. For Christ does not 
more explicitly say this is my bloody than he deno- 
minates the consecrated fluid, this offspring of the 
vine, 

(2.) Exactly the same result is brought out from 
the strictly analogous language employed by St. 
Paul. 

Speaking of the material substance on the patin 
after consecration, he twice denominates it this 
breadJ^ 

Now what, after consecration, was the specific na- 
ture of that substance? The Roman catholic assures us, 
that the substance in question was not bread, but hu- 
man flesh. St. Paul assures us, that the substance in 
question was not human flesh, but bread. 

The Anglican catholic cannot reconcile St. Paul 
and his Roman brother. If the Latin interpretation 
be adopted, the apostle is placed at direct variance 
with his divine Master. For, in such case, that iden- 
tical substance, which Christ declares to be his own 
literal flesh, Paul unreservedly pronounces to be 
bread. 

3. In addition to this incompatibility of the Latin 
interpretation with the terms in which the institution 
of the Eucharist has been recorded, it appears, so far 
as the Anglican catholic can judge, directly to contra- 
dict other declarations of Holy Scripture. 

(1.) St. John has preserved to us a very remarkable 
discourse of our Lord, which vvas delivered in the 
synagogue of Capernaum, both before the assembled 
Jews and before his own disciples. 

On the subject of his feeding the church with his 
own flesh and blood, his language was so strong, that 
the disciples murmured, and that the Jews indignantly 
asked. How can this man give us his flesh to eat?\ 

From the tenor of the narrative, it is evident that 

• 1 Corinth, xi. 26, 27. t John vi. 52, 60, 61. 



ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 75 

both the disciples and the Jews understood him lite- 
rally; but then it is no less evident, that he corrected 
their mistake, and that he taught them to understand 
him figuratively. 

It is the spirit that quickeiieth, said he in mani- 
fest explanation of the words which had given so much 
offence; the flesh profiteth nothing. The ivords 
that I speak unto you,, they are spirit o.nd they are 
life,^ 

Our Lord himself teaches us, we see, that his lan- 
guage is to be mier^iveiedi figuratively, not literally. 
But the Roman catholic maintains, that his language 
is to be interpreted literally, not figuratively . The 
exposition of the Roman catholic, therefore, directly 
contradicts an inspired declaration recorded in Holy 
Scripture. 

(2.) Nor is this the only declaration of Scripture 
which clashes with the Latin theory. 

It was foretold by the prophet David, that God 
would not suffer his Holy One to see corruption,^ 

Now, St. Peter, speaking by undoubted inspiration, 
teaches us infallibly, that this prediction related to 
the circumstance of the flesh of Christ not seeing 
corruption according to the general lot of humanity: 
for, agreeably to the purport of the sacred oracle, he 
rose again on the third day, ere corruption had taken 
place.J 

The special privilege, then, of the human nature 
of Christ was, that his flesh should never see corrup- 
tion. He would mysteriously unite the godhead to 
the manhood; and, as man, he would suSer and die 
on our behalf: but still, corruption should never in- 
vade that holy flesh, w^hich, without confusion of sub- 
stance, had been assumed into God. 

Thus ran the prophecy ; and thus, as St. Peter 
assures us, was it accurately accomplished. But, by 
the Latin interpretation, the purpose of God, in 

* Joljn vi, 60, f Psalm xvi. 10. t Acts ii. 22—32, 



76 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

regard to the human nature of Christ, is completely- 
frustrated. So far from the Holy One of God never 
seeing corruption, the literal flesh and blood of Christ, 
if the doctrine of transubstantiation be true, see cor- 
ruption again and again, by the necessary process 
of digestion, every revolving year and month and 
week. 

(3.) There is yet another plain contradictoriness to 
Scripture, which is fatally involved in the doctrine 
of transubstantiation. 

If we adopt the figurative scheme of exposition, 
we may innocently call the celebration of the Eu- 
charist a spiritual sacrifice; for even our very pray- 
ers are allegorical sacrifices offered up to God ;* but, 
if we adopt the literal scheme of exposition, we im- 
mediately produce a direct contradiction to Holy 
Scripture. 

The doctrine of the Latin church is, that, in the 
celebration of the Eucharist, the priest offers up 
the literal body and blood of Christ to God, as a 
true and proper expiatory sacrifice for the quick 
and the dead, Christ, therefore, according to the 
decision of the Latin church, is repeatedly offered. 

But, in Holy Writ, we are positively assured, that 
Christ was offered only ONCE.t 

Hence, so far as I can see, the Latin church and 
Holy Writ, through the agency of the doctrine of 
transubstantiation, are placed in direct variance with 
each other. The term once bears a sense immedi- 
ately opposite to the term repeatedly. According 
to Scripture, Christ is once offered; according to 
the Latin church, Christ is repeatedly offered. 
This variation can only be reconciled by proving, 
that the term once and the term repeatedly are 
equipollent. 

Such are the glaring contradictions to Scripture^ 

* Hos. xiv. 2. 

t Heb. ix. 28. x. 10. 1 Pet iii. 18. 



ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 77 

which inevitably attend upon the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation. How a doctrine so circumstanced 
can be true, it is difficult to comprehend; but, if the 
doctrine be erroneous, the exposition, upon which 
the doctrine is founded^ must certainly be erroneous 
also. The literal interpretation of our Lord's words, 
This is my body and this is my blood, cannot, by 
any conceivable hermeneutic mechanism, be esta- 
blished as the true interpretation. But, if the literal 
interpretation be thus displaced by the very neces- 
sity of Scripture itself, the figurative interpretation 
must inevitably be adopted. 

IL Though the figurative interpretation of our 
Lord's words be thus plainly required by Scripture 
when compared with Scripture, yet so great is the 
authority ot the catholic church nearest to the times 
of the apostles, that we cannot but be anxious to 
ascertain the interpretation which she was led to 
prefer and to adopt. 

What the apostles taught, relative to the Eucharist, 
must assuredly for many years have been the doc- 
trine of the church. Through the lapse of ages, error 
might gradually creep in; but it could not have sub- 
sisted from the beginning. If then, during the term 
of several centuries, we shall find that the figurative 
interpretation was the interpretation adopted by the 
early catholic church, we shall possess a moral cer- 
tainty of its truth. For, after we have been driven 
to the scheme of figurative interpretation by the 
very necessity of Scripture itself, if we find this 
identical scheme of interpretation adopted by the 
early catholic church, I see not what more decisive 
evidence can be reasonably desired. Li that case, let 
the literal scheme have crept in when it may, it 
must inevitably stand forth as an unauthorized and 
convicted novelty. Whatever is first, is true; 
whatever is more recent, is spurious, 

1. It must be confessed, that the early ecclesiasti- 
cal writers frequently use language respecting the 
G 2 



78 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

Eucharist, which may easily either mislead the super- 
ficial theologian, or seduce the interested polemic 
into the iniquity of partial citation. 

Thus, even in the second century, Justin remarks, 
that ''We receive not the elements as common 
'bread or as common wine: but, in what manner, 
' Christ our Saviour, being made flesh through the 
' word of God, took flesh and blood for our salvation; 
' in like manner also we are taught, that the aliment, 
' from which our blood and flesh are nourished by 
' transmutation, being received with thanks through 
' the prayer of the word instituted by himself, is the 
' flesh and the blood of that Jesus who was made 
' flesh/'^ 

Thus also, in the fourth century, Cyril of Jerusa- 
lem teaches the catechumens who had been recently 
baptized: "When Christ himself hath declared and 
' spoken concerning the bread, This is my body; who 
'shall henceforth dare to hesitate? And, when he 
' hath peremptorily pronounced and asserted. This is 
' my blood; who shall venture to doubt, saying that 
' it is not his blood ? He once, at the marriage-feast 
'in Cana of Galilee, changed the water into wine; 
' shall we not then give him credit for changing the 
' wine into blood ? If, when called to a mere corpo- 
' real marriage, he wrought that great wonder; shall 
' we not much rather confess, that he hath given the 
' fruition of his own body and blood to the sons of 
' the bridegroom ?'M' 

* Justin. Apol. i. vulg. ii. p. 7^^ 77. 

f Cyril. Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 237. Lutet. Paris. 1631. I have 
selected this passage, because, so far as I know, it is the strong- 
est which can be produced from antiquity in favour of the Latin 
doctrine of transubstantiation. Its strength consists in an appa- 
rent comparison between the changing of the water into wine at 
Canat and the changing of the wine into blood by the prayer of con- 
secration ,- whence an argument may immediately be constructed, 
that, since the change in the sacramental elements is compared 
to the confessedl}^ physical change of the water at Cana, the 
change in the sacramental elements must itself be physical also. 



ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 79 

These and other similiar passages, which might 
easily be accumulated, appear at first sight to put it 
out of all doubt, that the early church held a doctrine 
at the least very closely allied to the Latin doctrine 



I. This argument would indeed be most powerful if the appa- 
rent comparison were a real comparison. But let us carefully 
examine the passage in Cyril; and the imagined comparison will 
rapidly disappear. 

In the passage itself, even as it stands in an insulated form, I 
will be bold to say, that, upon a close inspection, no comparison 
whatever can be detected. Cyril does not compare the one 
change to the other change; but he simply argues from the mira- 
cle performed at Cana, just as he might argue from any other 
miracle, that, if the Lord could work miracles transcending the 
power of man, why should we doubt that he could also change 
the bread and wine into his own body and blood ? Such is the 
argument, not the comparison ; and it leaves the matter still un- 
decided, whether the change in the bread and wine be physical 
or moral. 

II. Thus would I say, even if Cyril had never written any thing 
on the Eucharist save the passage now before us; but, in truth, 
he elsewhere institutes a real comparison, which demonstratively 
proves, that the change, acknowledged by him in the consecrated 
elements, was simply moral, and in no wise physical. 

** Ye are anointed," says he, '* with ointment, and ye have be- 
' come partakers of Christ. But take care, lest you deem that 

* ointment to be mere ointment. For, as the bread of the Eucha- 
^rist, after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is no longer mere 

* bread, but the body of Christ; so this consecrated ointment is 

* no longer mere or common ointment, but the free gift of Christ 
' and the presence of the very Godhead of the Holy Spirit ener- 

* getically produced. Hence ye are symbolically anointed upon 

* the forehead and upon the other organs of sense. For with 

* visible ointment the body is anointed; but by the holy and vivi- 
^ fying Spirit the soul is sanctified." — Cyril. Catech. Mystag. iii. 
p. 235. 

In this passage, the change produced in the sacramental elements 
hy consecration is directly and avowedly compared to the change 
produced in the ancient chrism hy consecration. Now, confessedly, 
no change was ever thought to be produced in the ancient chrism 
by consecration, save a moral change; that is to say, the chrism 
ceased to be common ointment, and henceforth became holy oint- 
ment, which was supposed eminently to confer the graces of the 
Holy Spirit. Such being the case, since the change in the conse- 
crated elements is avowedly and illustratively compared to the 
change in the consecfrated chrism, and since the change in the conse- 
crated chrism is most undoubtedly a moral change onlyf it clearly 



80 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

of transubstantiation ; and, accordingly, places of this 
description are copiously adduced by Roman contro- 
versialists: but, in truth, if we can command patience 
enough to hear her explain herself, we shall find that 
the change in the elements, which she recognised, 
was a moral change by which they were converted 
from a secular to a holy purpose, not a physical 
change^ by which they were literally transmuted 
into human flesh and blood. 

2. That such was the doctrine of the early church, 
is abundantly evident from the multiplied compari- 
sons which were employed by way of illustration. 

The change, wrought by consecration in the ele- 
ments, is discribed, by Cyril and Irenseus, and the 
ancient Homilist in Jerome, and Gregory of Nyssa, 
as being similar in nature, to the change wrought by 
consecration in oil, or in an altar, or in a church, to 
the change wrought in our mortal bodies by their 
being made capable of immortality, to the change 
wrought in a layman by sacerdotal ordination, and to 
the change wrought in the unregenerate by the 
mighty efficacy of spiritual regeneration.* 

follows, that, in the judgment of Cyril, the consecrated elements 
experience no change save a moral changes that is to say, in the 
language both of Justin and of Cyril, we receive not the elements 
as common bread or as common wine; for, after the invocation of 
the Holy Spirit, the bread of the Eucharist is no longer mere 
bread, but bread henceforth set apart from secular use to a high 
and sacred purpose. 

I will venture to say, that no man, who thought with the mo- 
dern Latins, could ever have illustratively compared the change in 
the consecrated elements to the change in the consecrated chrism: for, 
had Cyril held the doctrine of transubstantiation, he must incon- 
gruously have compared 2i physical change to a moral change. 

* See Cyril. Catech. Mystag. iii. p. 235. Iren. adv. Hasr. lib. iv. 
c. 34. § 6. Homil. de Corp. et Sang. Christ, in Hieron. oper. vol. 
ix. p. 212. Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism, oper. vol. iii. p. 369. 

Asa specimen of the mode in which the earl)^ fathers illustrate 
the change wrought in the sacramental elements by the prayer of 
consecration, I subjoin the passage from Gregory of iXyssa referred 
to above. 

"This altar, before which we stand," says he, "is physically 
* mere common stone, differing nothing from the stones with 



ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 81 

Now, it is difficult to comprehend, how illustrative 
comparisons of this sort could ever have been used 
by persons who held the favourite doctrine of the 
modern Roman church. According to the Latin 
theologians, the change, produced in the elements by- 
consecration, is PHYSICAL : yet the ancients compar- 
ed this change to a great variety of changes, which 
are purely moral. Hence, by a necessary conse- 
quence, it seems to follow, that the change, which 
the ancients believed to take place in the elements 
by virtue of consecration, was moral, not physical. 

* which our hotfses are built : but, after it has been consecrated by 

* benediction to the service of God, it becomes a holy table, a sanc- 

* tified altar. In a similar manner, the eucharistic bread is 

* originally mere common bread ; but, when it has been consecra- 

* ted in the holy mystery, it becomes, and is called the body of 

* Christ. Thus also the mystic oil and the wine, though of small 
'value before the benediction, work wonders after their sanctifi- 

* cation by the Spirit. The same power of consecration likewise 

* imprints a new and honourable character upon a priest, when 
' by a new benediction he is separated from the laity. For he, 

* who was previously nothing more than a common man, is 

* suddenly transformed into a teacher of religion, and into a stew- 
' ard of the holy mysteries. Yet this great mutation is effected 

* without any change in his bodily form and appearance. Exter- 

* nally, he is the same that he already was ; but, internally, by 

* an invisible and gracious operation, a mighty change is effected 

* in his soul.'' 

So far as I can understand Gregory, whose language perfectly 
accords with that of Cyril and Irenseus, and the ancient author of 
the Homily in Jerome, he seems to have acknowledged no change 
in the bread and wine by virtue of consecration, save such a 
change as that which is wrought in a layman when by virtue of 
consecration he becomes a priest. Now, the only change in the 
layman, as indeed Gregory most carefully informs us, is a moral 
change. Therefore, the only change in the bread and wine, to 
which this change in the layman is expressly compared, must 
clearely be a moral change also. No person, who held the doc- 
trine of a PHYSICAL change in the elements, could possibly 
compare that physical change to a variety of other changes, every 
one of which is purely moral. Hence it is evident, that the 
primitive church acknowledged only a moral change in the 
elements ; and hence nothing can be more nugatory than the 
conduct of the Roman controversialists, who perpetually quote 
the Fathers as speaking of a physical change, when they most 
indubitably speak only of a moral change. 



82 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

3. With the avowed doctrine of the early church, 
that the change, wrought in the elements by conse- 
cration, is not PHYSICAL, but MORAL, the language 
employed respecting the elements themselves will be 
found exactly to correspond. 

Whenever the fathers descend to the strictness of 
explanatory definition, they plainly tell us, again and 
again, that the consecrated elements are only the 
types, OY figures^ or symbols^ or allegorical images 
of the body and blood of Christ; and, not unfrequently, 
as if anxious to remove all possibility of misapprehen- 
sion, they assure us, in express terms, that we do not- 
eat the literal body, and that toe do not drink the 
literal blood of Christ, when we participate of the 
blessed Eucharist. 

The subject is so important, that they must be 
allowed to come forward, and in their own words to 
bear their own testimony, 

(1.) "Inasmuch,^' says Clement of Alexandria, in 
the second century: *' Inasmuch as Christ declared, 
'that the bread which I give you is my flesh; and 
•inasmuch as flesh is irrigated by blood; therefore 
*the wine is allegorically called blood.* For 
'the word is allegorically designated by many 
' different names, such as meat and flesh and nourish- 
'ment, and bread and blood and milk ; for the Lord 
'is all things for the enjoyment of us, who have 
' believed in him. Nor let any one think that we 
'speak strangely, when we say, that milk is alle- 
' GORicALLY CALLED the blood of the Lord : for is 
'not wine likewise allegorically called by the 
' very same appellation ?t The Scripture, then, has 
' named wine a mystic symbol of the Holy blood. J 
' For be well assured, that Christ also himself partook 
'of wine; inasmuch as he also was a man. He 
'moreover blessed the wine, saying, Take, drink; 

* Clem. Alex. Pacdag. lib. i. c. 6. p. 104. 

t Ibid. p. 105. 

t Ibid. lib. ii. c. 2. p. 156. 



ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 83 

^this is my blood, the blood of the vine. The con- 
^secrated liquor of exhilaration, therefore, allegori- 
' cally represents the Word, who poured himself out 
' on behalf of many for the remission of sins/'* 

(2.) " God, in your Gospel,'^ says Tertullian, who 
flourshed at the latter end of the second, and at the 
beginning of the third century, '' has so revealed the 
' matter, calling the bread his own body, that you 
' may hence understand how he gave bread to be the 
^figure of his own body : which body, conversely, the 
^prophet has figuratively called bread, the Lord 
'himself being afterward about to interpret this sacra- 

* ment.t For we must not call our senses in question, 
' lest we should doubt respecting their fidelity even in 

< the case of Christ himself. Because, if we question 
' the fidelity of our senses, we might peradventure be 
' led to say, that Christ delusively beheld Satan pre- 

* cipitated from heaven, or delusively heard the voice 
^ of his Father testifying of him, or was deceived when 
' he touched Peter's mother-in-law, or smelt a different 
^ odour of the ointment which he received for his 

* sepulture, or tasted a different flavour of the wine 
' which he consecrated in memory of his own blood. J 
' Christ reprobated neither the water of the Creator 

* with which he washes his people, nor the oil with 
' which he anoints them, nor the fellowship of honey 

* and milk with which he feeds them as infants, nor 

< the bread by which he represents his own body: 

* for, even in his own sacraments, he needs the beg- 

* garly elements of the Creator.^^§ 

(3.) *'By water,^' says Cyprian, in the third cen- 
tury, speaking of the ancient custom of mingling 
water with wine in the eucharist: "By w^ater, we 
' perceive, that the people is intended; but, by 
' wine, we may observe, that the blood of Christ is 

* Ibid. lib. ii. c. 2. p. 158. 

t Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. iii. <^ 12, 13. p. 209. 

t Tertull. de Anim. in cap. de qiiinque sens. oper. p. 653. 

§ Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. i. § 9. oper. p. 155. 



84 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM 

' shown forth. Hence, when water is mingled with 
« wine in the cup, the people are united to Christ, 
' and the whole crowd of believers are linked and 
^joined to him in whom they have believed. For, 
^ if wine only be offered, the blood of Christ is with- 
^ out the people; and, if water only be offered, the 
^ people is without Christ. But, when both are 
' mingled and united together, then the spiritual and 
' heavenly sacrament is coinplete."^ 

(4.) ^^ With all assurance,'^ says Cyril of Jerusa- 
lem in the fourth century, " let us partake as of the 
' body and blood of Christ. For, under the type 
' of bread, his body is given to thee; and, under the 
'type of wine, his blood is given to thee: that so 
' thou mayest partake of the body and blood of Christ, 
' being one body and one blood with him.^^f 

(5.) ^' Under the name of flesh, ^^ says Chrysostom 
in the fourth century, '^Scripture is wont alike to 
^ set forth both the mysteries and the whole church: 
' for it says, that they are each the body of Christ.J 
' Wherefore let there approach no Judas, partaking 
^ of the poison of iniquity; for the Eucharist is 
' spiritual food.^^^ 

(6.) ''The Lord," says the great Augustine, in the 
fourth century, '' when he gave the sign of his 
' body, did not doubt to say. This is my body. || In 
' the history of the New Testament, so great and so 
' marvellous was the patience of our Lord, that, bear- 
' ing with Judas, though not ignorant of his purpose, 
' he admitted him to the banquet, in which he com- 
/ mended and delivered to his disciples the figure of 
' his own boJy and blood.lT Christ instructed his 



* Cyprian. Epist. Cxcil. Ixiil. p. 153, 154. Oxon. 1682. 
t Cyril. Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 217. 

\ Chrysost. Comment, in Epist. ad Galat. c. v. oper. vol. ix. p. 
1022. Commel. 1603. 

§ Chrysost. de Prodlt. Jud. Serm. xxx. oper. vol. v. p. 464. 
II August, cont. Adimant. c. xii. oper. vol. vi. p. 69. Colon. 1616. 
Tf August. Enarr. in Psalm, iii. oper. vol. viii. p. 7. 



ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 85 

' disciples, and said unto them, It is the spirit that 
' quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing. The words, 

* which I speak unto you, are spirit and life. As if 
' he had said: Understand spiritually what I have 
^ spoken. You are not about to eat this identical 
^body, which you see; and you are not about to 
^ drink this identical blood, which they who crucify 

* me will pour out. On the contrary, I have com- 
' mended a certain sacrament unto you, which will 
' vivify you if spiritually understood. Though it 
' must be celebrated visibly, yet it must be under- 
' stood invisibly.'^^ 

(7.) "Certainly/^ says Pope Gelasius in the fifth 
century, " the sacraments of the body and blood of 
' the Lord, which we receive, are a divine thing: 
^ because by these we are made partakers of the divine 
^ nature. Nevertheless, the substance or nature of 
' the bread and wine ceases not to exist; and, 
^ assuredly, the image and similitude of the body 
' and blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of 
^ the mysteries.^'f 

(8.) "The sacrament of adoption,^' says Facundus 
in the sixth century, '^ may be called adoption: just 
' as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, 
' which is in the consecrated bread and wine, we are 
' wont to call his body and blood. Not, indeed, that 
' the bread is properly his body, or that the wine is 
^properly his blood, but because they contain the 

* mystery of his body and blood within themselves. 
' Hence it was, that our Lord denominated the con- 
' secrated bread and wine, which he delivered to his 
' disciples, his own body and blood. ^^J 

4. It were easy to multiply extracts of a similar 
description; but these may suffice. Respecting the 
greater part of them, it is superfluous to offer any 

* August. Enarr. in Psalm, xcviii. oper. vol. viii. p. 397. 
f Gelas. de duab. Christ. Natur. cont. Nestor, et Eutych. in 
Biblioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422. 

i Facund. Defens. Concil. Chalced. lib. ix. c. 5. oper. p. 144. 

H 



86 DIPFICULTIES OP ROMANISM 

remarks. They speak for themselves; and their 
force cannot be heightened by the observations of a 
protestant commentator. One, however, of the cited 
passages may possibly be rendered even yet more 
striking and satisfactory by a word of explanation. 

Clement of Alexandria, in a manner which cannot 
easily be misunderstood, informs us, as we have seen, 
that the consecrated wine allegoric ally repre- 
sents the blood of the divine Word,^ In the cita- 
tion, nothing save this bare statement appears: a 
statement quite satisfactory no doubt; but still a bare 
statement. From a simple extract, the argument^ 
contained in the context, of necessity vanishes; yet 
that argument^ when connected with the statement, 
renders it doubly forcible and efficacious. Hence I 
must not withhold it from those who may not have 
an opportunity of consulting the original. 

In the days of Clement, certain sectaries, who 
bore the name of Encratites, contended that the use 
of wine was unlawful. Against these enthusiasts, 
Clement brings a variety of arguments; and, among 
them, he takes occasion to construct one very power- 
ful argument upon the use of wine in the Eucharist. 
His argument is to the following effect: — 

Christ himself consecrated true and proper ivi7ie 
in the institution of the Eucharist, This conse- 
crated wine he himself commanded his disciples 
to drink. Therefore, on the invincible authority 
of our Saviour Christy the use of wine cannot but 
be lawful. 

Thus runs the argument of Clement against the 
Encratites, in the context of the passage where he 
tells us, that the holy wine allegoric ally repre- 
sents the blood of Christ, Now, according to the 
scheme of figurative interpretation adopted by the 
church of England, the argument is perfectly conclu- 
sive; but it is grossly inconclusive, according to the 

* Clem. Alex. Psedag. lib. ii. c. 2. p. 158. 



ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 87 

scheme of ///era/ interpretation adopted by the church 
of Rome. Had Clement held with the Latin catholic, 
that the consecrated liquor, drunk by the disciples 
was NOT ivine, hut proper and literal human hloodj 
he plainly could never have argued, from the fact of 
the disciples having drunk literal human bloody that 
the use of wine was strictly lawful. On the supposi- 
tion, at least, of his having been a transubstantialist, 
he must actually have reasoned as follows: — 

Whatever Christ ordains is laiofuL But the 
disciples^ by Chrisfs special ordination, drank 
literal human blood. Therefore the use of wine 
is lawful. 

Between such premises and such a conclusion, 
there is evidently not the least connexion; and yet, if 
Clement were a transubstantialist, this most assuredly 
must have been the mode in which he reasoned. 
But no man of common sense could argue with such 
gross absurdity. Hence we may be certain, that 
Clement never did thus argue : and hence, finally, 
we may be certain also, from the very tenor of his 
own argument against the Encratites, that, he w^as 
not a transubstantialist. 

His argument and his statement, in short, perfectly 
accord. From the authorized use of wine in the 
Eucharist, he demonstrates the lawfulness of the 
use of wine in general; and, in strict agreement 
with such an argument, he tells us, that the conse- 
crated wine, not literally is, but allegorically 
REPRESENTS, the blood of Christ. 

An argument against the Encratites, when built 
upon this statement, is doubtless invincibly conclu- 
sive: but then Clement himself, without incurring 
the least censure from his contemporaries, will sym- 
bolize, in the doctrine of the Eucharist, with the 
church of England, not with the church of Rome. 



88 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM, 



CHAPTER V. 

Respecting the Latin Defence of the Doctrine of 
Transubstantiation from the Language em- 
ployed by our Lord, 

Were the doctrine of Transubstantiation capable 
of defence, the task would have been accomplished 
by the bishop of Aire. If its cause fail in the hands 
of such a master, we must indeed pronounce that 
cause to be desperate. 

The bishop's first argument in favour of the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation is drawn from the words 
of Christ himself, as recorded in Holy Scripture.* 

I. Previous to the specific institution of the Eucha- 
rist, Christ is said by St. John to have delivered, in 
the synagogue of Capernaum, before the Jews and his 
own disciples, a very remarkable discourse, in which 
he declared the necessity of eating the flesh of the 
Son of Man and of drinking his bloodA 

It may perhaps be recollected, that upon this iden- 
tical discourse was built one of my own arguments 
from Scripture, against the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation. J Yet so very differently does the same pas- 
sage sometimes strike different persons, that the 
bishop has constructed upon it what he deems a con- 
clusive argument in favour of that doctrine. 

When Christ declared the necessity of eating the 
flesh of the Son of Man and of drinking his blood, 
both the Jews and the disciples understood him in a 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett, vi, vii. f John vi. 26-— 65. 

t See above, Book i. chap. 4. § I. 3. (1.) 



LATIN DEFENCE OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 89 

literal sense; and, accordingly, they were vehemently 
offended. Now, as they understood our Lord at the 
time when the discourse was delivered, the bishop 
contends that we also ought to understand it at the 
present day. 

1. His lordship is far too able a controversialist 
not to perceive, that the main question hinges upon 
a subsequent most important declaration of our 
Saviour. 

Certainly, the Jews and the disciples understood 
our Lord to speak literally: but, before we adopt 
their opinion, we must have some evidence of its pro- 
priety. Now, Christ^s own exposition of his own 
words fully demonstrates, in the judgment of many 
persons, that the Jews and the disciples had hastily 
taken up an erroneous opinion. Finding that his 
auditors understood him literally^ he assured them 
that they were mistaken, and that he meant to have 
been ww^eYsioodL figuratively. 

It is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh pro- 
fiteth nothing : the words that I speak unto you, 
they are spirit and they are life.^ 

In this manner did our Lord explain the words 
which had given so much offence ; and, if his expla- 
nation be understood as protestants commonly under- 
stand it, the passage, adduced by the bishop in 
support of his cause, is in truth decidedly adverse. 
Hence, as we might naturally expect from so intelli- 
gent a writer, he sets himself to discover a sense for 
Christ's explanation, which shall not compel him to 
relinquish the advocated doctrine as altogether unte- 
nable. 

It is well known, he remarks, that, in the ordinary 
style of Scripture, the flesh often signifies the corpo- 
real senses, or the carnal and corrupt reason of 
man; while the spirit denotes the grace of God, or 
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Our Lord, then, 

• John vi. 63. 
H 2 



90 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

here declares, that the flesh or the corrupt reason of 
man profits nothing to discover and to believe that 
which he has announced. The real manducation of 
his literal flesh and blood is a matter at which the 
carnal or natural man has ever stumbled. Such a 
doctrine can be received by the spirit alone. The 
words spoken by Christ are indeed spirit and life; 
but then they are spirit and life solely to that spiritual 
man, who, renouncing the flesh or corrupt reason, 
is enabled by the grace of God to understand them 
literally.* 

I must confess, that the present appears to me a 
somewhat extraordinary description of the two states 
of the carnal man and the spiritual man. 

If we may believe the bishop of Aire, the carnal 
man displays his carnality by adopting the spiritual 
interpretation of our Lord's phraseology; while the 
spiritual man evinces his spirituality by preferring 
the carnal interpretation. 

Such a description may perhaps be thought para- 
doxical; and such a gloss will, I fear, satisfy none, 
except those who are already satisfied. The true 
meaning of our Lord's explanation will still be liti- 
gated : nor do I perceive how the matter is to be 
decided, save by the calling in of an umpire. Let 
that umpire then be the primitive church, speaking 
through the mouth of certain of her most eminent 
doctors. To such an arbitration, the bishop, who 
repeatedly claims ecclesiastical antiquity as his own, 
cannot reasonably object ; and to such an arbitration 
I myself am perfectly willing to submit our dif- 
ference. 

What then say the early writers of the church, as 
to the true purport of our Lord's explanatory decla- 
ration? Do they understand it, as the bishop of Aire 
is willing to understand it; or do they interpret it as 
it is commonly interpreted by protestants? 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 265 — 267, 






LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 91 

Assuredly they prefer the protestant interpreta- 
tion ; for we find Tertallian, Augustine, Athanasius, 
and Clement of Alexandria, all concurring in the 
supposition, that our Lord meant to correct the mis- 
take into which the Jews and the disciples had fallen, 
and to teach them that his words ought to be under- 
stood, not literally^ hut figuratively , On this point, 
these great doctors of the church are full and ex- 
plicit and unambiguous. They all quote our Sa- 
viour's declaration ; and, expounding it precisely as 
we protestants expound it, they all pronounce upon 
the strength of it, that his antecedent language, re- 
specting the necessity of eating the flesh and drink- 
ing the blood of the Son of Man, ought to be inter- 
preted, not literally and carnally, but figuratively 
and spiritually,^ 

* Tertull. de Resur. Cam. § xxvili. oper. p. 69. August. Enarr. 
in Psalm, xcviii. oper. vol. viii. p. 397. Clem. Alex. Psedag*. lib. i. 
c. 6. p. 104. Athan. in illud Evan. Quicunque dixerit verbum con- 
tra filium hominis. Oper. vol. i. p. 771, 772. Commel. 1600. 

That it may be the more distinctly seen how widely the 
ancients differed from the bishop of Aire, I subjoin, as a specimen, 
the gloss of Athanasius. 

** When our Lord conversed on the eating of his body, and 

* when he thence beheld many scandalized, he forthwith added, 

* Doth this offend you? What if ye shall behold the Son of Man 

* ascending where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; 
' the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I speak unto you 

* are spirit and life. Both these matters, the flesh and the spirit, 

* he said respecting himself: and he distinguished the spirit from 
< the flesh, in order to teach men, that his sayings are not carnal 

* but spiritual. For to how many persons, think you, could his 
*body have literally been food; so that it might become the ali- 

* ment of the whole world? But, that he might turn away their 
' minds from carnal cogitations, and that they might learn that the 
'flesh which he would give them was heavenly and spiritual food; 
' he, on this account, mentioned the ascent of the Son of Man to 

* heaven. The words, said he, which I speak unto you, are spirit 

* and life. As if he had intimated: My body shall be given as food 
'for the world; but then it must be imparted to each one only 

* after a spiritual manner, that so to all it may be an earnest of the 
'resurrection to eternal life.'' 

The gloss of Augustine is equally full and explicit against the 
bishop of Aire. I have already given it at large. See abore. 
Book i. chap. 4. § 11. 3. (6.) 



93 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

Such authorities place the bishop of Aire in a situ- 
ation which is in no wise enviable. If he retain his 
own gloss of our Lord's explanatory declaration, he 
contradicts four of the most eminent doctors of the 
early church: if he adopt the gloss, propounded alike 
by those ancient doctors and by modern protestants, 
he must inevitably give up the theory of transub- 
stantiation. 

2. But, though the gloss projected by the learned 
prelate enjoys not the high sanction of the ancients, 
still he contends, that its propriety, however modern 
it may be, is evinced by the very behaviour of the 
disciples. 

Had they been satisfied (he argues) with our Lord's 
explanation of the hard saying which had given them 
so much offence, they would have remained with 
him. But we are told, that from that time many 
of his disciples went back and walked with him no 
more.* Therefore (the bishop infers) they were not 
satisfied with his explanation; and, consequently, the 
purport of his explanation cannot be, that his flesh 
and his blood w^ere to be received only after a spiri- 
tual manner. 

The argument is more ingenious than conclusive. 
His lordship assumes, that the stubborn Jews and the 
apostatizing disciples would have been quite satisfied, 
if they had understood our Lord's explanation as 
Tertullian and Clement and Augustine and Atha- 
nasius understand it. Whence he argues, that they 
did not so understand it, because they w^ere not 
satisfied. 

Now, the justice of this assumption, which forms 
the very basis of the bishop's argument, I must take 
leave to doubt. 

The idea of the precepts of a teacher being spi- 
ritually meat and drink was perfectly familiar to 
the Jews ; and, as such, it would clearly have given 

• John vi. 66. 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRAN SUBSTANTIATION. 93 

them no offence i"^ but the idea of the teacher 
HIMSELF becoming the aliment of his disciples must 
have been altogether new to them; and I strongly 
suspect, that, from their prejudiced minds, the offence 
of such a doctrine would not be removed even by a 
spiritualizing explanation. 

According to the rules of just reasoning, the bishop 
must establish the validity of his assumption before 
he can be allowed to argue from it. For my own 
part, I deny its validity altogether: for I believe, 
that, even when our Lord had given a spiritualizing 
explanation of his offensive language, the Jew^s and 
the apostatizing disciples were still scandalized at 
the strange and novel idea of A teacher becoming 
the aliment of his pupilsy however that idea might 
be softened to them. 

It may be added, what the bishop wholly overlooks, 
that our Lord's discourse contained much to offend 
them, beside his asserting the necessity of their eating 
his flesh and drinking his blood ; and I take it, that 
the general impression left upon their minds was, 
that he was a dealer in unintelligible paradoxes, from 
whom much offence and little useful instruction 
could be received. Under the mingled operation of 
these feelings, many of his disciples went back and 
walked no more with him. 

II. From the preparatory discourse at Capernaum, 
the bishop passes to the specific institution of the 
Eucharist. 

1. On this subject he justly remarks, that, when 
Christ ordained that sacrament, his phraseology could 
not but have forcibly recalled to the minds of his dis- 
ciples the language which he had previously held in 
the synagogue at Capernaum. Whence he argues, 
that, as they understood him literally on the one 

* See Ezek. lii. 1—11. Prov. ix. 5. Ecclus. xxiv. 21. Phil. Jud. 
Leg. Alleg. lib. ii. p. 90. 



94 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

occasion, they would also understand him literally 
on the other occasion. 

The conclusiveness of the present argument de- 
pends entirely upon the establishment or the non- 
establishment of the bishop^s opinion relative to the 
matters which occurred at Capernaum. Now the 
totally different views of that question taken by his 
lordship and myself, bring us of necessity to totally 
different views of the language employed by Christ 
in the institution of the Eucharist. The bishop, 
maintaining that Christ was from first to last literally 
understood by the disciples in the synagogue at Ca- 
pernaum, maintains also, that he was literally unAeY' 
stood by them at the institution of the holy supper. 
I, on the contrary, maintaining, on the ground of 
Christ^s own explanation as interpreted and received 
in the early church, that he was at length figuratively 
understood by the disciples at Capernaum, maintain, 
that he was also figuratively understood by them 
at the institution of the Eucharist. Under this aspect, 
therefore, the matter resolves itself into the question, 
which of the two litigants has most satisfactorily 
established his opinion in regard to the purport of 
Christ's language at Capernaum. 

2. While the bishop thus argues, with whatever 
cogency, in favour of the literal interpretation of the 
language employed by Christ in the institution of the 
Eucharist, he brings forward also certain objections 
to that figurative interpretation of it which is pre- 
ferred and adopted by the church of England. 

(I,) He urges, that, previous to the institution of 
the Eucharist, bread had never been taken as a sign 
of our Lord's body. Whence he contends, that the 
consecrated bread cannot be legitimately viewed as a 
sign or type, or image or symbol."^ 

With the ostensible premises of this argument I 
am little concerned. They may be very true, as the 

• Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 293, 294. 



X 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRAN SUBSTANTIATION. 95 

bishop thinks: or they may be very false, as the early 
fathers of the church believe.^ With the ostensible 
premises I concern not myself: my business is with 
the conclusion. Now that conclusion strikes me as 
altogether unwarrantable. Let the objection of the 
bishop be disguised as it may, when thrown into a 
regular form, it will run as follows: — 

Unless a word has already been used figura- 
tively, we have no right so to interpret it in any 
particular instance. But the word bread was 
never used figuratively as denoting Chrisfs body^ 
previous to the institution of the Eucharist, 
Therefore the figurative interpretation of it, in the 
case of the Eucharist^ is inadmissible. 

Such, when regularly drawn out, is the bishop^s 
argument In his own statement of it, the true pre- 
mises are altogether concealed; and certain spurious 
premises, which may be very accurate or which may 
be very inaccurate, so far as matter of fact is con- 
cerned, are alone brought forward to notice. The 
bishop makes his conclusion to depend upon the 
alleged circumstance, that, previous to the institution 
of the Eucharist^ bread had never been taken as a 
sign of our Lord^s body: whereas the conclusion re- 
ally depends upon the proposition, that unless a laord 
has already been used figuratively, we have no 
right so to interpret it in any particular instance. 
Now the utter falsehood of this proposition must be 
plain to the very meanest capacity. If it be received 
as true, it will indeed make short work with the whole 
family of metaphors: for it is quite clear, that, \i pre- 
vious use by earlier writers be necessary to consti- 



* To a person so well skilled as the bishop in the works of the 
ancient fathers, I do not think it necessary to point out, by a 
formal adduction of instances, how perpetually they consider 
bread and wine, when mentioned in the Old Testament, to be 
sig*ns or figures of our Lord's body and blood. Two of the most 
favourite passages, adduced for this purpose, are Gen. xiv. 18. and 
Gen. xlix. 11. 



96 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

tute a legitimate metaphor, no metaphor whatsoever 
can be in existence; inasmuch as, at some period or 
other, every metaphor must have been used for the 
first time. 

(2. ) The bishop attempts to show, that the expres- 
sions, / a7n the door and / am the vine^ are not 
homogeneous with the expressions, This is my body 
and This is my blood. Whence he contends, that 
the homogeneous scheme of interpretation, insisted 
upon by the church of England, is certainly unte- 
able.* 

I am unable to comprehend the force of the rea- 
soning, by which he would disprove the homogeneity 
of those several expressions. To members of his 
own communion, who may perceive what I unfortu- 
nately cannot perceive, his reasoning will doubtless 
appear valid; but it will have small weight with those, 
who have not been already convinced through some 
other medium. I claim not to be a very profound 
rhetorician ; but, after all the labour which the bishop 
has bestowed upon the subject, the expressions, I am. 
the door and I am the vine^ and This is my body and 
This is my blood, strike upon my own apprehension, 
as being strictly homogeneous, and as being alike 
figurative or metaphorical. In the construction of 
them I can see no difierence. The fault may be my 
own; but such is the fact. When Christ says, I am 
the door; both the bishop and myself understand him 
to speak figuratively: when he says of the conse- 
crated bread, This is viy body; I am unable to per- 
ceive, why I MUST NOT understand him to speak 
figuratively, and why I must understand him to speak 
literally.! 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 295. 

f The bishop of Meaux, much in the same manner as the bishop 
of Aire, attempts to make out a case, that, while the expression 
I am the vine must be figuratively interpreted, the expression 
This is my blood must be literally interpreted. Hist, des Variat. 
livr. ii. § 26, 27. 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 97 

His case works no conviction in my own mind; and, apparently, 
it would have met with no better success, had it been propounded 
to the ancient fathers. The speaker, at least, in Theodoret's Dia- 
logues, who bears the characteristic name of Orthodoxus, and who 
argues against the doctrine of a physical change in the consecrated 
elements then first propounded by the Eutychian heretics, con- 
tends, that our Lord honoured the visible symbols with the name 
of his body and blood, because he had previously called himself 
a vine. Hence it is clear, that the orthodox church of the fifth 
century understood the two expressions, lam the vine and This is 
my hlood, in the same sense : that is to say, she alike understood 
them figuratively or metaphorically. See Theodor. Dial. i. oper. 
vol. iv. p. 17, 18. Lut. Paris, 1642. The reader will find the entire 
passage cited below, Book i. chap. 8, § 1. 1. 



98 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 



CHAPTER VI. 

Respecting the Latin Defence of the Doctrine of 
Transubstantiationj from the secret Discipline 
of the early Church. 

There are few matters of theological antiquity- 
more curious and extraordinary, than the secret dis- 
cipline ef the early Christian church. "^ 

Assuredly, as the bishop of Aire most justly re- 
marks, those persons greatly err, who would place 
the rise of this institution no higher than the fourth 
century. Origen, in the third century, perpetually 
refers to it; and its existence in the second century 
may clearly be gathered from the writings of Tertul- 
lian and Clement of Alexandria. I am myself unable 
to trace it, at least distinctly, any higher than those 
fathers. Justin mdij possibly allude to it: but I can- 
not venture to hazard an assertion respecting the 
words of that ancient author.* 

The bishop thinks, that this, discipline originated 
with the apostles themselves; and he attempts, by 
various authorities, to make good his opinion. 

I more than doubt, whether he has succeeded. He 
shows indeed, what we all knew, that the primitive 
christians, from a lawful wish to escape persecution, 
conducted their worship secretly in regard to the 
pagans: but this is a very different thing from that 
discipline of the early church, which was conducted 
secretly in regard to the catechumens. The rise of 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. viii. 
, f See Justin. Apol. i. vulg". ii. p. SS, 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 99 

the last, I incline to think, cannot be placed higher 
than about the middle of the second century; and 
both its mechanism and its phraseology show, not 
obscurely, its true origin. 

St. Paul, more especially when writing to the 
Gentile churches^ often alludes, with great felicity, to 
the rites and ceremonies of the pagans. Among 
other matters, he, again and again, refers most point- 
edly to the ancient mysteries."^ This last illustrative 
idea was caught up, more eagerly than wisely, by the 
governors of the church, apparently^ as I have said, 
about the middle of the second century. The pagans 
had their venerable mysteries, into which none were 
admitted unless they had passed through a long pre- 
vious novitiate: St. Paul might be supposed to coun- 
tenance the establishment of yet more venerable 
Christian mysteries. Accordingly, the church soon 
determined to have an institution of this nature, into 
which none should be admitted without passing 
through the long probationary stage of catechumen- 
ism. Henceforth then, with an ill-advised imitation 
of gentilism, the bishop or officiating presbyter was 
made to correspond with the hierophant; the deacon, 
with the daduchus; the catechumen, with the aspir- 
ant; and the baptized communicant, with the illumi- 
nated epopt. Such was the mechanism of this singu- 
lar institution; and the man must be ill-versed in the 
compositions of the early ecclesiastical writers, who 
has not observed a studied adaptation of language 
plainly enough borrowed from the phraseology of 
the pagan mysteries.t 



* Rom. xi. 25. xvi. 25—27. 1 Corinth, ii. 4—8. xv. 47—51. 
Coloss. i. 26—28. ii. 1—4. iv. 2^5. Ephes. i. 9, 10, 16—18. v. 
31, 32. 

t See Tertull. Apol. adv. Gent. p. 821. Clem. Alex. Strom, 
lib. V. p. 574 — 579. Origen. in Levit. Homil. ix. Comment, in 
Johan. Oper. vol. ii. p. 97, 98. Lactant. Instit. lib. vii. § 26. 
Cyril. Hieros. Praefat. in Catech. p. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9. Chiysost. 
Sanct, Miss, in Oper. vol. iv. p. 607, 



100 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

Now the theory of the bishop, as might be antici- 
pated from the purport of his work, is this. 

The secret discipline of the primitive church had 
for its sole cause the doctrine of transubstantiation: 
for, in the very nature of things, it could not possi- 
bly have had any other cause than that which is 
thus assigned to it. Hence it will follow, that the 
grand^ and exclusive^ and special secret of the 
Christian mysteries was the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation.* 

I. It is easy to exhibit a favourite theory under a 
plausible aspect; and to his own theory this service 
has been rendered, in an eminent degree, by the 
deeply-learned bishop of Aire. 

In the primitive church, he argues, a most extra- 
ordinary system of secret discipline was established. 
The sole object of this discipline was to conceal, 
from the pagan on the one hand, and from the cate- 
chumen on the other hand, the true doctrine of the 
Eucharist. What then could be that single doctrine, 
which was exclusively guarded with so much jealous 
care, while every other doctrine was freely exposed 
to the public gaze? Could it have been the doctrine 
of the Eucharist, according to the Anglican interpre- 
tation of our Lord's phraseology? The supposition 
is incredible: for no satisfactory reason can be given, 
why such a doctrine should have been so jealously 
concealed from the uninitiated. Nothing then re- 
mains but the conclusion, that the real secret of the 
Christian mysteries was the doctrine of the Eucha- 
rist, according to the Roman interpretation of our 
Lord's phraseology. Admit this opinion; and the 
whole conduct of the primitive believers becomes 
lucidly intelligible. Reject this opinion; and their 

* Or je me flatte a present, Monsieur, que vous voyez claire- 
ment que la discipline du secret sur I'Eucharistie a eu effective- 
ment le dogme de la realite pQur cause, et n^ajpu en avoir d^ autre* 
Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 2. 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 101 

whole conduct is a tissue of unaccountable inconsis- 
tencies. 

Thus argues the bishop of Aire; and such is the 
impression which he would leave upon the mind of 
his reader. Yet I can safely say, that, if his work 
produces such an impression, it produces an im- 
pression which but ill accords with the testimony of 
the ancients. 

Let us, however, proceed to a discussion of the 
theory, which, with no small dexterity, his lordship 
has undertaken to advocate. 

1. The bishop asserts, as the very basis of his 
argument, that the true doctrine of the Eucharist, 
whatever that doctrine might be, whether it were the 
doctrine taught by the church of England or the 
doctrine taught hy the church of Rome, was the sole 
and exclusive secret of the ancient Christian myste- 
ries.* 

I acknowledge the force of the bishop's reasoning 
from this position: but, unfortunately, the position 
itself rests not upon any solid foundation. His argu- 
ment is avowedly built upon the alleged fact, that the 
true doctrine of the Eucharist was the exclusive 
secret of the Christian mysteries. Now^, for the 
allegation of this pretended fact, the bishop has no 
authority w^hatever. Let the true doctrine of the 
Eucharist be what it may, that doctrine was not the 
exclusive secret of the Christian mysteries. On the 
contrar}^, as we shall soon learn from positive 
evidence, the mysteries propounded many secrets; 
and those many secrets were no other than the 
whole circle of the higher and peculiar doctrines of 
Christianity. Thus perishes the argument from the 
alleged fact of exclusiveness. 

2. Still it may be said, that, although the myste- 
ries were not instituted exclusively for the purpose 
of concealing from the profane the true doctrine of 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 2. 
I2 



102 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

the Eucharist, yet, at all events, they were mainly 
^KiA principally instituted for that purpose. 

So it may be said; but for such a supposed asser- 
tion there is no foundation. The true doctrine of 
the Eucharist was neither the exclusive secret of the 
mysteries, nor yet even their principal secret. 

(1.) Perhaps one of the most curious works which 
have come down to us from ecclesiastical antiquity, 
is a volume containing the catechetical and mystago- 
gical lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem. His catecheti- 
cal lectures were delivered to the illuminated, or to 
that higher class of catechumens who were on the 
point of being admitted into the church by the rite 
of baptism : his mystagogical lectures were delivered 
to those who had been recently baptized, and who 
were preparing themselves to partake of the blessed 
Eucharist. 

Now these lectures, as Cyril's own preface or in- 
troduction expressly tells us, contained the develop- 
ment of those secrets or mysteries, which it was the 
object of the arcane discipline to conceal from the 
lower classes of the catechumens."^ 

^' When the catechism is recited/' says he, '^ if a 
^ catechumen shall ask you what the teachers said, 
^ tell nothing to him that is without. For we have 
' delivered to you the mystery and the hope of the 
^ future contest. Keep then the mystery to him who 
^ will repay you: and regard not, if any one shall 
^say; What great harm can there be, should I also 
' learn? Know, that sick men ask for wine : yet, if 
' it shall be unseasonably given to them, it produces 
^frenzy; and two bad consequences thence result, 
' the sick man dies, and the physician is blamed. In 

* The Auditorum tyrocinia, as Tertullian speaks. TertuU. de 
Poenit. Oper. p. 481. One of the appellations of the Catechu- 
mens was Auditores or Hearers ; and over them presided an offi- 
cer styled a Catechist or Teacher^ who was appointed by the 
bishop of the see, and who acted under his authority. See 
Cyprian. Epist. xxix. p. 55, 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 103 

' like manner, the catechumen, if he hear the myste- 
^ries from the faithful, becomes phrenetical: for he 
' understands not what he hears, and the faithful is 
' condemned as a betrayer.* When you were a cate- 
' chumen,! did not reveal the mysteries to you: and, 
' when by experience you shall have learned their 
^ sublimity, you will then perceive that the catechu- 
^ mens are unworthy to hear them.t These cateche- 
^ tical lectures of the illuminated you may indeed 
' communicate, either to those who are approaching 
' to baptism, or to the faithful who have been already 
' baptized: but reveal them not in any wise, either to 
' the catechumens, or to those others who are not 
^Christians; lest you should thus make yourself ac- 
' countable to the Lord."§ 

Nothing can be more explicit than this statement. 
We clearly learn from it, that the series of lectures, 
which it introduces, were delivered for the purpose 
of developing those mysteries which the system of 
the secret disciple concealed from the catechumens. 
Would we then ascertain the mysteries, we have sim- 
ply to read the lectures. 

Exclusive of the preface or introduction, the cate- 
chetical lectures are eighteen in number; and they 
are followed by five mystagogical lectures, addressed 
to the competentes who had been recently baptized. 

Of the eighteen catechetical lectures, the three first 
relate to baptism and its necessary qualifications ; and 
the last treats of the holy catholic church, the resur- 
rection of the body, and the life everlasting. All 
the intermediate lectures, fourteen in number, dis- 
cuss the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, viewed as 
branching out into its various subordinate and con- 
nected doctrines of the godhead of Christ, the incar- 
nation, the atonement, the operations of he spirit, 
and the like. In the whole series, I do not recollect 



* Cyril. Praefat. in Catech. p. 6. 

t Ibid. p. 6. § Ibid. p. 9. 



104 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

that more than a single short hint is given of the doc- 
trine of the Eucharist; and it is couched in language 
not very favourable to the theory of transubstantia- 
tion. If the Lord shall deem thee loorthy, thou 
shall hereafter know^ that the body of Chinst^ ac- 
cording to the gospely sustained the type of bread,^ 
It is difficult to say what these words can mean, if 
they do not intimate, that the bread is a type or sym- 
bol or figure or representation of Christ's most pre- 
cious body. They contain, however, a promise, that 
the subject shall hereafter be resumed; and, accord- 
ingly, it reappears in the mystagogical lectures. 
These, as I have observed, are five in number. The 
two first treat of baptism, which the persons address- 
ed had recently received : the two next treat of the 
Eucharist: the last is chiefly practical, save that it con- 
tains an allusion to prayers for the dead; which had 
then begun to be partially introduced, which Cyril 
owns were objected to by many, and which he 
attempts, though not very cogently, to defend and 
vindicate. 

From the brief, though accurate, account of Cyril's 
lectures to the illuminated and to the initiated, let 
any impartial person judge, what must in common 
equity be deemed ihe principal secret of the christian 
mysteries. Certainly, it was the doctrine of the Holy 
Trinity. Accordingly, Cyril himself reduces every 
subordinate and dependent doctrine under that grand 
and ineffable mystery, viewing it, and speaking of it, 
as the common centre of the whole circle of Chris- 
tianity. 

'^ These mysteries,^' says he, ^'the church commu- 
' nicates to him who is quitting the class of the cate- 
' chumens. For it is not customary to reveal them 
* to the heathens: nor do we propound to a heathen 
' the mysteries concerning the Father and the Son 
' and the Holy Ghost. Neither yet do we openly 

• Cyril. Catech. xiii. p. 130, 131. 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 105 

' speak concerning them to the catechumens : but we 
^ often speak many things covertly; in order that the 
^ faithful who know them may understand us, and in 
' order that the catechumens who are ignorant of them 
'may not be injured/'* 

(2.) The result, to which we have been brought by 
this examination of the lectures of Cyril, is confirmed 
by the authority of Jerome. 

That eminent father, when mentioning the ancient 
practice of revealing the mysteries to the illuminated, 
during the course of the forty days which imme- 
diately preceded their baptism at Easter, is so absorb- 
ed by the idea of the j?;a/mary secret, that he notices 
that secret alone^ as if it were exclusively the subject 
of the arcane discipline, 

'^We have a custom, ^^ says he to Pammachius, 
' of publicly delivering to those who are about to be 
^ baptized, during the forty days which precede their 
' baptism, the mystery of the holy and adorable 
' Trinity.'''^ 

To this custom of the probaptismal lectures being 
delivered during Lent, antecently to the celebration 
of baptism at Easter, Cyril, as we might well antici- 
pate, specially alludes. 

"You must pardon me to-day for my prolixity,^^ 
says he to the illuminated: "your attention may 
' perhaps be fatigued; but the holy festival of Easter 
' is now approaching. ^^j 

(3). With Cyril and Jerome agrees Origen, the 
learned catechist of Alexandria in the third centurj^ 

No one can have perused the commentary on St. 
John by this great writer, without perceiving that, 
from first to last, it is absolutely full of references to 
the arcane discipline of the early church. § What 

* Cyril. Catech. vi. p. 60. 

•J- Hieron. Epist. Ixi. ad Pammach. c.4. Oper. vol. i. p. 180, 
^ Cyril. Catech. xvii. p. 201. 

§ See Orig. Comment in Johan. p. 6, 8, 9, 18, 25, 30, 51—54, 
57, 97, 125, 126, 203. 



106 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

then, according to Origen, was that grand secret of 
the mysteries, which so threw every minor secret 
into the background, that the catechist was tempted, 
like Jerome, to mention it, as if it were in a manner 
the only secret? 

" This,^^ says he ^^it was fit to know, that, as the 

* law affords a shadow of good things to come, made 
' manifest by the law which is preached according to 
^the truth: so likewise the gospel, which is fancied 
^ to be understood by all those who indiscriminately 
^ address themselves to it, teaches only a shadow of 
' the mysteries of Christ. But what John calls the 
' everlasting gospel, or what might fitly be styled the 
^spiritual gospel, clearly sets forth, to those who 

* really understand it, all things, even before their 
'very faces, concerning the Son of God; wherefore 
' it is necessary to Christianize, both spiritually and 
^corporeally: and, where indeed it is fit to preach 
^ the coporeal gospel, saying to the carnal, that we 
^ know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified; 
^ this must be done: but, when they shall have 
^ become firmly compacted in the spirit, and when 
^they shall bring forth fruit in it; then, as loving 
^ the heavenly wisdom, we may safely impart to 
' them the hidden doctrine respecting the ascent of 
' the incarnate Word to the state in which he was 
^ with God in the beginning.'^^ 

I need scarcely remark, that, in this passage, as the 
whole of its previous context shows, the carnal are 
the yet uninitiated and imperfectly instructed cate- 
chumens; while the lovers of heavenly loisdom are 
the competentes or illuminated, to whom, as prepa- 
ratory to their baptism, the mysteries were about to 
be revealed. These two different classes are treated 
after a very different manner. To the former, gene- 
ral truths are alone propounded, through the medium 
of what Origen calls the corporeal g'ospel: to the 

* Orig. Comment, in Johan. p. 9, 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 107 

latter, through the medium of what he denominates 
the spiritual gospel, the divinity of the incarnate 
Word, and his eternal union with the Father and the 
Spirit, are unreservedly imparted as the sum and 
substance of the Christian myteries."^ 



* It may be useful to remark, that this passage, and two other 
parallel passages in the same commentary (Comment, p. 49, 52), 
have been adduced by Dr. Priestley for the express purpose of 
demonstrating, that, in the days of Origen, the great multitude of 
Gentile Christians were generally anti-trinitarians, who rejected 
loith abhorrence the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity. Hist, of Early 
Opin. book iii. chap. 13, sect. 2. Works, vol. vi. p. 483. 

In a professed historian, such a total ignorance of ecclesiastical 
antiquity is indeed most lamentable. Dr. Priestley, incredible as 
such an error may well seem, has actually mistaken avery peacea^ 
hie body of primitive catechumens^ to whom, in the course of their 
religious institution, the higher mysteries of Christianity had not as 
yet been communicated : Dr. Priestley has actually mistaken these 
primitive catechtimens, for a mighty army of strenuous and volu- 
ble anti-trinitarian confessors ! 

Scarcely less extiaordinary is another closely-connected error, 
which, in the same section of his work, the historian has fallen 
into, relative to a passage in Tertullian. 

For the avowed purpose of showing, that, in the time of that 
father^ the majority of believers were anti-trinitarians, who held the 
doctrine of the Divinity of Christ in abhorrence; Dr. Priestley 
adduces a place, in which Tertullian, after tritely remarking that 
the bulk of believers must, in the very nature of things, be 
ALWAYS composed of ignorant men, proceeds to censure the then 
novel heresy of the Patripassians. Now, according to Dr. Priest- 
ley, the persons, censured by Tertullian, were a mighty majority, 
who held the doctrine of Christ's Godhead in abhorrence. Whereas, 
in truth, these very persons, whose majority Tertullian never 
asserts, absolutely identified the Son with the Father and the Spirit,- 
and thence contended, that our Lord, by whatever economical name 
he might be distinguished, was himself God exclusively. — Hist, of 
Early Opin. book iii. chap. 13, sect. 2. Works, vol. vi. p. 486, 
TertuU. adv. Prax. § ii. iii. Oper. p. 406. 

The mischief which results from productions of such a stamp 
as Dr. Priestley's two Histories, is almost incalculable. That 
author bears a high name among persons of his ownrehgious sen- 
timents; and, by the unlearned or half-learned of his party, all hds 
strange errors are greedily swallowed without any further exami- 
nation. 

Of this indiscriminating appetite we have a remarkable instance 
afforded us, in a small book, lately published under the title of 
Letters in Defence of Unitarianism, by another Barrister. 



108 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

(4.) We are still brought to the very same position 
by the great Augustine of Hippo. 

Like Cyril of Jerusalem, that luminary of the 
fourth age has bequeathed to us a course of lectures, 
addressed to those more advanced catechumenS; who 
were styled the illuminated^ and who were prepar- 
ing themselves to receive the sacrament of baptism. 
The work is comprised in four books; and, with the 
exception of three brief allusions to, not explana- 
tions of, the doctrine of the Eucharist, it is wholly 
occupied in developing the grand secret of the Holy 
Trinity, with those other subordinate mysteries 
which depend upon that grand secret.* 

(5.) With the evidence afforded by the fathers of 
the church agrees also the te^stimony borne by the 
gentiles. 

When we recollect the various apologies and other 
controversial works produced by the early ecclesias- 
tical writers, in which they distinctly propound the 
doctrines of Christ's Godhead and the Trinity, we 
shall not wonder, that the principal secret of the 
mysteries was more or less known even to the 

Full of the most unsuspecting simplicity, the heedless au- 
thor of this book has implicitly copied from Dr. Priestley all 
that historian's mistakes relative to the passages in Origen and 
TertuUian. With the anonymous barrister, as with the ecclesias- 
tical historian, Origen's uninitiated catechumens are zealous sysie- 
matic anti-trinitarians : while Tertullian's patripassian worship- 
pers of Christ as God exclusively, assume the unlooked-for aspect 
o^ persons who held the doctrine of Christ's Godhead in abhorrence. 

Nor is the barrister the only writer, who has been so unhappily 
misled by Dr. Priestley. The manifold errors of the unskilful 
historian have been industriously repeated by various other infe- 
rior workmen; and, on the insecure authority of Dr. Priestley, 
the saying, that, in the days of TertuUian and Origen, religionists ^ 
who abhorred the doctrine of Chrisfs Divinity, were the greater part 
of Christians, is commonly reported among the unitarians until 
this day. 

* August, de Symbol, ad Catech. Oper. vol. ix. The three 
brief allusions to the Eucharist will be found in lib. ii. c. 1, p. 
260, hb. ii. c. 6, p. 263, lib. iii. c. 5, p. 268. 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 109 

pagans."^ In fact, though the early church adopted a 
system of secret discipline, she still knew and judged 
wisely, that there might be times when it became 
her to speak aloud, plainly and unreservedly. Under 
such circumstances, even pagan testimony, in regard 
to the grand secret of the Christian mysteries, may 
be adduced not unprofitably. 

Among the works of Lucian is usually printed a 
very curious dialogue, entitled, Philopatris, Its 
author is unknown; but, in regard to the time of its 
composition, Gesner seems to have proved, so far as 
matters of that kind can be proved, that it was writ- 
ten during the reign of the Emperor Julian.t Hence 
it must have been composed much about the same 
period as that during which flourished Cyril of Jeru- 
salem. 

In this dialogue, the speakers are Triephon and 
Critias: the former a Christian, the latter a Pagan. 
Critias, playing the buffoon, amuses himself vv^ith 
assuming the character of a catechumen; and, in that 
mock capacity, solicits instruction from Triephon. 
The wretched humour of the piece consists in the 
circumstance of the simulated catechumen's real 
paganism perpetually, and as it were unguardedly, 
betraying itself. Critias, at length, swears by Jupi- 
ter; and this is the moment, which Triephon is made 
to select for the purpose of initiating him into the 
grand secret of the Christian mysteries. 

What then is the secret now revealed.^ Does the 
mode of its communication favour the opinion of the 

* See Justin. Apol. i. vulg*. ii. p. 43. Dial, cum Tiypb. p. 198. 
Athenag". Leg-at. § ix. xi. xxii. p. 37, 38, 41, 96. Tertull. Apol. 
adv. Gent. p. 850. Tertull. adv. Prax. p. 405, 406. Melit. Apol. 
apud Chron. Pascli. in A.D. 164, 165. Clem, Alex. Protrep. p. 
5, 6, 66y 68. Orig-en. adv. Cels. lib. iii. p. 135, lib. iv. p. 169, 
170. Arnob. adv. Gent. lib. i. p. 23, 24. Minuc. Pel. Octav. p. 
280, 281, 284. Lucian. de Mort. Peregrin. Oper vol. iii. p. 333, 
334, 337, 338. 

t See Gesner. Disput. de ^tat. et Auctor. Philop. in Oper. 
Lucian. ad calc. vol. iii. Reitz. Amstel. 1743. 

K 



110 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

bishop of Aire; or does it support the opinion, which 
I have been led to advocate? The secret is unfolded 
by Triephon the catechist in the manner following: — 

^' The lofty, the great, the immortal, the celestial 
' God: the Son of the Father; the Spirit proceeding 
' from the Father: one from three, and three from one: 
^Deem these things Jove: reckon this to be God.^'* 

3. I have now shown, in opposition to the bishop of 
Aire, that the doctrine of transubstantiation was nei- 
ther the exclusive secret, nor even the principal sq- 
cret, of the ancient christian mysteries; and, to that 
precise extent, therefore, I have invalidated his very 
ingenious theory. Still, however, it may be urged 
by his lordship, that, although neither the exclusive 
secret nor the priiicip a I secret , it was, at any rate, an 
e7ninent secret of the mysteries : and, in proof of 
such an opinion, he may adduce the language of that 
very Cyril, whose lectures I have specially employed 
for the purpose of demonstrating that the grand se- 
cret was the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 

Cyril, it may be argued by the bishop, devotes two 
of his mystagogical lectures to the doctrine of the 
Eucharist; and, in those very lectures, he propounds 
to the initiated, most clearly and most distinctly, as 
an eminent secret of the mysteries, the dogma of 
transubstantiation. 

" The bread which we behold,^^ says he, '^ though 
^to the taste it be bread, is yet not bread, but the 
^body of Christ: and the wine, which we behold, 
' though to the taste it be wine, is yet not wine, but 
' the blood of Christ.'^t 

Here, then, it may be urged on the authority of the 
catechist Cyril himself, the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation is unreservedly set forth to the baptized mys- 
tae, as one of the grand secrets preserved and handed 

* Philop. in Oper. Lucian. vol. iii. Reitz. Amstel. 1743. 
f Cyril. Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 238, 239. 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Ill 

down from the beginning by the arcane discipline of 
the church. 

This, I apprehend, when divested of its various 
inaccuracies, is the best and most plausible form, un- 
der which the theory of the bishop can be exhibited: 
and, as I wish not to take any unfair advantage, I have 
myself very honestly, in the present statement, given 
his theory every possible chance of success. 

I shall now, therefore, finally proceed to show, 
that, as the doctrine of transubstantiation was neither 
the exclusive nor ihe principal secret of the myste- 
ries; so, notwithstanding the apparently decisive lan- 
guage of Cyril, it was not taught at all in the 
mysteries, even under the form of the very smallest 
and least important vsecret. 

A doctrine, which existed not in the early church, 
assuredly could not be taught by the secret discipline 
of that church. Now it can be shown from evidence, 
both christian and pagan, that the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation existed not in the church of the first ages. 
Therefore, a doctrine, thus circumstanced, could not 
possibly have been a secret of the mysteries. 

(1.) On the subject of christian evidence, I have 
already been so copious, that this branch of my argu- 
ment is completely anticipated. 

Fully supported by the authority of Ire n sens, Ter- 
tullian, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, 
Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Gelasius, Facundus, 
the ancient homilist in Jerome, and even Cyril of Je- 
rusalem himself, I have stated, that the church of at 
least the five first centuries recognised no change save 
a moral change in the consecrated elements; that she 
expressly denied our participation of the literalhoAy 
and blood of Christ, and that she esteemed the bread 
and wine to be only types or figures or symbols or 
images of those awful realities which they were em- 
ployed to represent.^ 

* See above, Book i. chap. 4. § II. 



112 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

Such being the case, the doctrine of transubstantiation 
could have had no existence in the church of the five 
first centuries: and, if it existed not, it clearly could 
not have been made, in any, even the smallest degree, 
the subject of the mysteries. 

(2.) From christian evidence, then, I may be allowed, 
without further repetition, to pass to the consideration 
of pagan evidence. This latter evidence is of a na- 
ture so remarkably strong, that, even alone, it is am- 
ply sufficient to decide the question. Through its 
instrumentality, we may demonstrate, beyond the 
possibility of confutation, that the doctrine now be- 
fore us was totally unknown to the church of the 
first ages: whence, of course, it will inevitably fol- 
low, that it never could have been a secret of the an- 
cient mysteries. 

Every person, moderately versed in the documents 
of antiquity, is well aware, that the pagans again and 
again pleased themselves with ridiculing the well- 
known christian worship of the Saviour as God: and, 
in the dialogue Philopatris^ we find them similarly 
scoffing at the catholic doctrine of the trinity.* Such 
ridicule proves the existence of those doctrines in the 
primitive church: and, by a parity of reasoning, if 
they had scoffed at the doctrine of transubstantiation, 
they would equally have established the existence of 
that doctrine. But, so far as I know, they never 
deride the doctrine of transubstantiation. Yet, had 
that doctrine formed one of the secrets of the mys- 
teries, they must, in all human probability, have come 
to the knowledge of it; for we find demonstratively, 
that they were not ignorant even of the grand and 
palmary secret : and, had they known the doctrine 

* **Thou art teaching me arithmetic," says Critias, when the 
secret of the mysteries is imparted to him: '*thy oath is purely 
'arithmetical: verily, in the science of numeration, thou rivalest 
*Nicomachus the Gerasenian. I know not what thou art saying*. 

* One, three; three, one! Certainly thou art dealing with the 

* tetractys, or the ogdoad, or the triad of Pythagoras," 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 113 

of transubstantiation, we cannot doubt that it would 
have similarly experienced their ridicule. But they 
never even so much as mention it. From their very 
silence, therefore, we may learn, that in the early 
church no such doctrine existed. 

It may be said, that the pagans might possibly 
have learned the doctrines of Christ^s godhead and 
the trinity, and yet that they very possibly might 
not have learned the doctrine of transubstantiation : 
for it does not follow, that, because they had learned 
some of the secrets of the mysteries, they must, 
therefore, have learned them all. Hence the argu- 
ment from their silence is defective in conclusiveness. 

Be it so: but my argument does not stop short at 
this point; nor, had such been the case, should I 
have ventured to describe it as incapable of confu- 
tation, I can produce the negative evidence of a 
pagan, who flourished in the middle of the fourth 
centur)^, who delights to ridicule all the peculiar 
doctrines of Christianity, who must have been ac- 
quainted with the doctrine of transubstantiation, had 
it then existed; who certainly would have scoffed at 
it if he had been acquainted with it, and who yet 
never once mentions it, or even so much as alludes 
to its very existence. 

The pagan, whom I thus characterize, and whom 
I summon as an unexceptionable witness, is the 
Emperor Julian. 

That extraordinary man was once, in profession at 
least, a christian : but, hating the light of the gospel, 
he apostatized to paganism. Now Julian, be it care- 
fully observed, had been, not merely an uninitiated 
catechumen^ but a baptized christian,^ As a bap- 
tized christian, he must have heard the preparatory 
lectures of the catechist : as a baptized christian, he 

* Sozomen. Eccles. Hist. lib. v. c. 2. According* to Sozomen, 
Julian attempted to wash out his mark of baptism with the bJood 
of victims sacrified to the averruncan demons. The fact of Ms 
baptism is sufficient for my arg'uraent. 
K 2 



114 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

must, according to the discipline of the church, have 
been regularly initiated into the mysteries. If, then, 
as the bishop contends, transubstantiation were the 
secret doctrine most especially taught in the mys- 
teries, Julian must have been well acquainted with 
the existence of that doctrine : and, if acquainted 
with its existence^ a man of his humour would not 
have failed to make it the subject of his bitter ridicule. 

How then stands the case with the imperial apos- 
tate, who, having been baptized, had indisputably 
been initiated into all the secrets of the mysteries? 

In the work against Christianity, which has been 
substantially preserved, and which has been regularly 
answered by Cyril of Alexandria, Julian ridicules the 
adoration of Christ; the godhead of Christ; the birth 
of Christ from the Virgin ; the conception of Christ 
by the Holy Ghost; the doctrine, that Christ was the 
creator of the universe; the doctrine, that Christ is 
the Word of God, the Son of God, God from God of 
the substance of his Father ; the doctrine of the trini- 
ty, which is the basis of the doctrine of Christ's god- 
head : he amuses himself likewise with what he deems 
the incurable absurdity of the purification of sin by 
the mere element of water in baptism : and, approx- 
imating to the very subject of transubstantiation, if 
any such doctrine had been then held in the church, 
he laughs at the Galileans for saying, that Christ had 
once i3een sacrificed on their behalf, and that, conse- 
quently, they themselves offered no sacrifices. But 
yet NEVER, on any occasion, or by any accident, though 
eagerly bent upon catching at everything in Christi- 
anity which he might turn to derision, does he 
mention^ or even so much as remotely allude to, the 
Latin doctrine of transubstantiation. "^ 

Exactly the same remark applies to Julian's other 

* See Cyril. Alex. cont. Julian, lib. v. p. 1 59. lib. vi. p. 191, 213. 
lib. viii. p.' 253, 261, 262, 276. lib. ix. p. 290, 291, 314. lib. x. p. 
327, 333. Ibid. lib. vii. p. 245. Ibid. lib. ix. p. 305, 306. lib. x. 
p. 354. Lipsi2e, A. D. 1696. 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 115 

works. Again and again he ridicules the Galileans, 
their agapse and ministrations at tables, their base 
superstition, their acknowledgment of Christ's god- 
head: Moses also, and the prophets come in for a 
due share of his vitupeAtion : Athanasius is reviled 
as the enemy of the gods, and as the artful inveigler 
of noble women to receive the sacrament of baptism : 
and, through the side of the first christian Emperor 
Constantino, the gospel is vilified, as encouraging 
universal profligacy and dishonesty and licentious- 
ness, by its doctrine of cheaply purifying ablution 
and free pardon on condition of repentance. Yet 
NEVER does the emperor even once please himself, 
either by ridiculing, or by simply noticing, that 
doctrine which the bishop of Aire maintains to be the 
grand and exclusive secret of the ancient mysteries. "^ 

I may be mistaken in estimating the strength of 
this argument: but it strikes upon my own apprehen- 
sion, as being perfectly irresistible. 

Let any reasonable being consider the complete 
knowledge which the baptized apostate powssessed of 
the doctrines of Christianity, his utter hatred of the 
gospel, his perpetual recurrence to the detested Gali- 
leans and their more detested theology, his humour 
of turning into ridicule whatever in Christianity he 
thought capable of being made ridiculous : let any 
reasonable being consider these several matters ; and 
then let him judge, whether, if transubstantitation had 
been a doctrine of the early catholic i?hurch, it could 
possibly have been passed over in -total silence by 
such a man as Julian. 

The complete taciturnity of the profane emperor, 
in everything that regards the doctrine of transub- 

* See Julian. Imper. Oper. Orat. vi. p. 192. Orat. Frag-ment. p. 
305. Misopog-. p. 363. Epist. vii. p. 376. Epist. xlii.p. ^423, 424. 
Epist. xlix. 429 — 431. Epist. li. p. 432—435. Epist. lii. p. 435 
—438. Epist. Ixii. p. 450. Epist. Ixiii. p. 453, 454. Ibid. Orat. 
Fragment, p. 289, 295. Ibid. Epist. vi. p. 376. Epist. xxvi. p. 398. 
Epist. li. p. 432, 435. Ibid. Caesar, p. 336. Lips. A. D. 1696. 



116 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

stantiation, is, I think, as complete a negative proof 
of its non-existence in the fourth century, as can be 
either desired or imagined. Repeatedly does he 
scoff at all the peculiar doctrines of Christianity : but 
he NEVER ridicules the LatinMogma of transubstanti- 
ation. 

II. As I have now sufficiently shewn the total 
erroneousness of the bishop's theory, I might here 
be well permitted to conclude. Since, however, by 
way of establishing his speculation respecting the 
object of the ancient secret discipline, he claims to 
bring an argument from a recorded fact^ I am un- 
willing to close the present subject without paying 
all due attention to that argument. 

It is well known, that the pagans, from a very early 
period, were accustomed to charge the christians, 
sometimes with devouring the flesh and drinking the 
blood of a slaughtered man, and sometimes with first 
murdering and then feasting upon the mangled limbs 
of a young child. 

This is Xh^fact^ on which the bishop would frame 
an argument in favour of his system; and the argu- 
ment itself is to the following purport: 

From the very first, christians were accused of 
celebrating a Thyestean banquet in their accursed 
mysteries. To elicit the truth, they were frequently 
and violently tortured. Invariably , however, they 
denied the charge, Noiu,, if they had esteemed the 
elements in th^ Eucharist purely symbolical, why 
did they not give an explanation of the rnatter, 
which would at once have liberated them from tor- 
ture? Yet, in no recorded instance, did they give 
any such exposition. Therefore they must consci- 
ously have held the doctrine of transubstantiation, 

I have given the bishop's argument with as much 
strength and compactness as I am able : and, after 
weighing it with all care and attention, it strikes me 
as being so very paradoxical, that I marvel at its adop- 



LATIN DEFENCE OP TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 117 

tion by a man possessing the acuteness of the respected 
prelate of Aire. 

From his lordship's premises, according to my own 
notions of accurate reasoning, I should have been 
brought to a directly opposite conclusion. The re- 
corded y«c/ I should have deemed utterly yh/a/ to his 
system : and, purposing myself to bring it forward 
against him when a convenient opportunity should 
offer, I was not a little surprised, as I advanced in the 
perusal of his work, to find, that he had anticipated 
me, and that he had preoccupied as his ground what 
I had innocently supposed to be mine. Had not the 
bishop thus got the start of me, I had intended to ar- 
gue as follows : — 

Through a recorded misapprehension of the true 
nature of the Eucharist, the pagans fancied, that the early 
christians literally devoured human flesh and literally 
drank human blood. To procure a confession of this 
enormity, they applied the torture : but the christians 
invariably denied the existence of any such abomina- 
tion in their religious ceremonial. Now they could 
not ivith truth have denied its existence, if they had 
held the doctrine of transubstantiation : for, in that 
case, they must have been conscious, that, according 
to their full knowledge and belief, they were in the 
constant habit of literally devouring human flesh and 
of literally drinking human blood. Yet, under the 
most severe torments, they invariably and totally de- 
nied the fact. Therefore, by denying the fact, they 
of necessity denied also the doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation. 

Such, had I not been anticipated by the bishop, 
w^as my intended argument : and, as its basis was that 
identical fragment of Irenseus, to which his lordship 
has referred less amply than I could have wished, I 
shall subjoin the fragment itself, as it has been pre- 
served to us by Ecumenius. The fact, as the bishop 
justly observes, took place during the persecutian at 
Lyons in the year 177. 



118 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

^^ The pagans, wishing to ascertain the secret cere- 
' monial of the christians, apprehended their slaves, 
' and put them to the torture. Impatient of the pain, 
^and having nothing to tell which might please their 
'.tormentors, the slaves, who had heard their masters 
' say that the Eucharist was the body and blood of 
^ Christ, forthwith communicated this circumstance. 
' Whereupon the tormentors, fancying that it was 
' literal blood and flesh which was served up in the mys- 
' teries of the christians, hastened to inform the other 
' pagans. These immediately appehended the martyrs, 
' Sanctus and Blandina : and endeavoured to extort 
' from them a confession of the deed. But Blandina, 
' readily and boldly answered. How can those, who 
^ through piety abstain even from lawful food, be ca- 
' pable of perpetrating the actions which you allege 
' against them?'^^ 

Now, after a full and impartial consideration of this 
passage, I am compelled to conclude and to reason 
from it as follows : — 

The pagans, misapprehending the testimony of the 



* Iren. Fragment, apud CEcum. in 1 Pet. ii. 12. A further ac- 
count of these matters is g-iven in the epistle from the churches of 
Vienna and Lyons to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, as pre- 
served by Eusebius. The same accusation is made against the 
christians; and the same explicit denial is given, not only by 
Sanctus and Blandina, but by all the faithful. According to the 
statement given in this epistle, Blandina was a christian slave of a 
christian mistress, while Sanctus was a deacon of the church of 
Vienne. The latter, therefore, as an ecclesiastic, must certainly 
have well known the real doctrine of the Eucharist. With these 
the epistle mentions Epagathus a youthful believer, Maturus a re- 
cently-baptized mysta, Attalus the very column and basis of the 
church, Bybhs a christian woman, Ponticus a boy of fifteen years, 
and the venerable bishop Pothinus, stooping under the burden of 
more than nine decades. Young and old, male and female, bond 
and free, ecclesiastic and laic, they all equally denied the partici- 
pation of literal human flesh and literal human blood in the cele- 
bration of the Eucharist. Under such circumstances, by what ima- 
ginable possibility they could all have been transubstantialists, 
exceeds my powers of comprehension. See Euseb. Hist. Eccles. 
lib. V. c. 1. 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 119 

slaveSj charged the christians with literally eating 
the flesh and with literally drinking the blood of a 
man whenever they celebrated the Eucharist. But 
the christians flatly denied the existence of any such 
practice. Therefore, if the christians denied the 
practice, when thus, in avoived connexion with their 
celebration of the Eucharist, explicitly charged up- 
on them, they must, to all intents and purposes, have 
denied the doctrine of transubstantiation. 

The bishop however contends, that, had the chris- 
tians of Lyons deemed the elements to be only sym- 
bols, they would readily have freed themselves from 
the torture by giving to their persecutors this easy 
explanation of the charge brought against them. But 
no such explanation did they give. Therefore they 
virtually acknowledged the justice of the charge, in 
so far as the Eucharist was concerned. 

I wonder to see so able a man argue, in every point 
of view, with such utter inconclusiveness. In the 
first place, the charge of eating literal human flesh 
and of drinking literal human blood in the celebra- 
tion of the Eucharist was, as we have already found, 
constantly and explicitly denied by them: and, in the 
second place, it is difficult to conceive, under their 
circumstances, what possible benefit could have re- 
sulted from a formal explanation of their doctrine. 
They were tortured for the express purpose of forcing 
a confession, that, in the celebration of the Eucharist, 
they devoured literal human flesh and drank literal 
human blood. Now any such explanation, as the 
bishop would have us expect from them, would 
plainly amount to a denial of the charge; which de- 
nial they had already made in so many words: and 
it would be further attended only with the efiect of 
making their persecutors view them in no better light 
than that of specious but dishonest equivocators. 
Where then would have been the utility of the re- 
quired explanation? Torture was applied for the pur- 
pose of extorting a confession. The explanation 



120 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

required by the bishop, would have been considered 
by the pagans as an equivocating denial And, accord- 
ing to the avowed philosophy of the rack, confession 
not having been extorted, the torture would have been 
continued or increased. Where then, I may again 
ask, would have been the utility of the required ex- 
planation? The sum and substance of the account, 
given by Irenaeus, is this. On the evidence of their 
slaves, who had heard their masters say that the Eu- 
charist was the body and blood of Christ, the christians 
of Lyons were tortured in order to extort a confes- 
sion, that they literally ate human flesh and literally 
drank human blood in the celebration of the eucha- 
ristic mysteries. Such, in form, was the charge 
brought against the christians. But this charge, even 
upon the rack, they uniformly and constantly and 
firmly denied. 

From these unpromising materials, the bishop of 
Aire has constructed an argument, by which he under- 
takes to prove that the primitive christians certainly 
held the doctrine of transubstantiation. 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 121 



CHAPTER VII. 

Respecting the Latin Defence of the Doctrine of 
Transubstantiation, from the Language of the 
ancient Liturgies^ and from the Phraseology of 
the early Ecclesiastical Writers, 

Nothing can be more easy and simple, than the 
method of dealing with the ancient liturgies, and 
with the phraseology of the early ecclesiastical 
writers^ which has been adopted by the bishop of 
Aire.* 

The passages which speak of the consecrated ele- 
ments being changed into the body and blood of 
Christ, he adduces with a copiousness which may 
well perplex an unsuspecting English laic. But not 
a single place does he cite, in which this change is 
delared to be purely morale in which the elements 
are pronounced to be mere symbols^ or in which we 
are explicitly told that we do not eat the literal body 
and that we do not drink the literal blood of our 
Saviour Christ. Respecting passages of this latter 
description, though they fully explain all passages of 
ihe former description, the bishop displays a prudent 
reserve. If produced, they would be fatal to his 
system. Hence his lordship, more judiciously than 
equitably, keeps them in the background.! 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett, ix, x. 

f The passag-es, suppressed by the bishop, 1 have already 
brought forward; and I desire nothing" more, than that any Eng-lish 
layman, who peruses his lordship's citations, will peruse also mine. 
See above, Book I. chap. 4. § ii. 

L 



122 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

I have said, and I say it with deep regret, that the 
bishop has cautiously withheld from the eyes of his 
English correspondent those passages^ ivhich, if 
produced, would have given an effectual death- 
blow to his own speculations. The passages have 
NOT been produced BY HIS LORDSHIP. Yet he was 
too deeply learned in the fathers to be ignorant of 
their existence: and he was too skilful a polemic to 
venture upon the hazardous experiment of suppressiilg 
all allusion to them. What then was to be done? 
Instead of fairly producing at full length the identical 
passages themselves, so that the English laic might 
be able to form a just and accurate estimate of the 
litigated question, the bishop informs him, that in the 
early ecclesiastical writers there are indeed places, 
which a dexterous special pleader may turn to some 
little account: but, at the same time, he assures him, 
that, when those writers speak of the consecrated 
elements being symbols or figures of the body and 
blood of Christ, they mean no such thing as a careless 
or superficial observer might rashly fancy them to 
mean. 

To establish this position, the bishop has adopted 
two distinct and certainly unconnected lines of argu- 
ment. 

I. He admits, that the consecrated elements are 
described by the early ecclesiastical writers^ as being 
figures or symbols or images or types of the body 
and blood of Christ. This he admits: for, in goocj 
sooth, the denial of a naked fact was impossible. 
But then he assures the English laic, that the cir- 
cumstance of their being symbols does not prevent 
the circumstance of their being also realities. Sym- 
bols, no doubt, they are of Christ's body and blood; 
but then, at the same time, they are also Christ's 
body and blood their own literal proper selves. 

I have rarely met with a more singular experiment 
upon the presumed obtuse intellect of a simple laic, 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 123 

than this which has been adventured by the learned 
bishop of Aire. 

An acknowledged symbol or image of a thing^^ if 
we may credit a very able divine of the Latin church, 
may be at once both a sym^hol of the, thing m ques- 
tion^ and yet the identical thing itself which it is 
employed to symbolize! 

By what new figure of rhetoric, or on what prin 
ciple of plain common sense, the bishop reaches this 
paradoxical consummation, I presume not to conjec- 
ture. Assuredly, his proposed solution of the pre- 
sent difficulty overturns every notion, which we had 
previously been led to form respecting the nature of 
type and symbol, of metaphor and allegory. 

The Serpent^ says Horapollo, ivas^ am^ong the 
Egyptians^ a symbol of the world,^ Hence, on the 
bishop^s new rhetorical arrangement, the serpent is at 
once, both a symbol of the world, and the literal 
identical world which it symbolizes. 

Hagar, as w^e learn from St. Paul, allegoricallj^ 
represented Mount Sinai in Arabia.t Therefore, if 
we adopt the bishop's principle, Hagar was not only 
a symbol of Mount Sinai, but the proper substantial 
Arabic mountain itself. 

The consecrated wine, as we are assured by Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, allegorically symbolizes the 
blood of Christ.J Hence, as the bishop maintains, 
the consecrated wine is at once, both the symbol of 
Christ^s blood, and the identical literal blood which 
it symbolizes. § 

* Ho rap. Hierog, lib. i. c. 2. f Galat. iv. 24, 25. 

i: Clem. Alex. Pxdag-. lib. ii. c. 2. p. 158. 

§ The bishop of Meaux had already attempted to manage the 
stubborn fact, that the early fathers perpetually call the conse- 
crated elements types or signs or symbols or figures of the body 
and blood of Christ: but he has so completely failed, that the 
bishop of Aire, probably on that account, neither refers to him 
nor adopts his line of argument. 

By the Romanist, the point to be established is, that the acknow- 
ledged sign or symbol of a thing may not only be the symbol of the 



124 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

II. To imagine, that a man of the bishop's supe- 
rior attainments could himself admit such a tissue 
of rhetorical absurdities, whatever he might think of 
the less subtle intellect of his English correspondent, 
is perfectly out of the question. Internally ^ his 

thing symbolized, but also that it may additionally be the identical 
thing which it is employed to symbolize. For, in the application of 
this extraordinary principle to the sacrament of the Lord's Sup- 
per, the ancient fathers compel him to allow, that the consecrated 
elements are symbols of the body and blood of Christ; and he himself 
contends, that they are likewise additionally that identical body 
and blood of Christ which yet they are employed symbolically to 
represent. 

How then does the bishop of Meaux deal with a paradox, which 
apparently bids defiance to the whole system of rhetoric? 

He tells us, that the acknowledged existence of a sign or symbol by 
no means forbids the actual presence of the thing signified or sym- 
bolized; and he illustrates this position by stating*, that the signs of 
life imply the actual presence of life, and that the temporary human 
forms assumed by angels imply the actual presence of the angels. 
Hist, des Variat. livr. iv. § 11. 

All this is perfectly true, but, unfortunately, it bears not in the 
slightest deg-ree upon the paradox now before us. 

The point, which the bishop had to establish, was, that any 
given matter might be at once both the symbol of a thing and the 
thing symbolized. 

Now his illustrative arg-ument plainly establishes no such incon- 
gruous position. Were I disposed to be severely precise, I 
might fairly say, that his lordship plays the sophist, and that he 
illeg'itimately tampers with the word sig7i. For, when the fathers 
speak of the consecrated elements being" signs of Christ's body 
and blood, by the word ^i^w they mean a type or figure ov symbol.' 
but, when the bishop speaks of a healthy pulse being a sign of 
life, or of a temporary human body being the sign of an angel's 
presence, he uses the word sign, not in the sense o^ a symbol, but 
in the sense of a token or indication. Let this, however, pass: let 
his lordship have the full benefit of his own sophistical illustra- 
tion; and what follows? Has he established the position, which 
he undertook to establish? Nothing of the sort. A healthy pulse 
is a sign of life; but is not identical with the life which it indicates. 
The temporary bodies, assumed by angels, were signs of the 
presence ofthose aiigels; but the temp Drary bodies were not the 
angels themselves. 

Thus, evidently, is the whole illustration of the bishop quite 
foreign to the assertion; that the consecrated elements are, at once, 
both symbols of Christ^s body and blood, and the identical body and 
blood of Christ which they are employed to symbolize^ 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 125 

lordship no more admitted it, than I do; and, exter- 
nally^ he has in effect confessed this to be the case, 
by additionally adopting a totally different line of 
argument, the very principle of which inevitably 
destroys the principle of his last argument. 

In the secret discipline of the early church, argues 
the bishop, the mystery of transubstantiation was 
communicated only to the faithful: while, with the 
most anxious jealousy, it was concealed alike from the 
pagans and the catechumens. Such being the case, 
we must not wonder to find the ancient ecclesiastical 
writers in two directly opposite stories. To the 
mystae, they declare, without reserve, the grand 
secret of transubstantiation : to the pagans and to the 
catechumens, they propound the symbolical or alle- 
gorical nature of the consecrated elements^ assuring 
them, that these elements are only types or figures or 
representations of the body and blood of Christ. By 
this contrivance, and at no gigeater expense than that 
of a direct falsehood, every thing continued as it 
ought to be. Pure unmingled truth attended upon 
the initiated: while, by a holy untruth, the profane 
curiosity of the pagan and the catechumen was effectu- 
ally baffled. 

1. What degree of obligation the fathers would 
feel to the bishop of Aire for this account of their 
theological dexterity, could those venerable men start 
out of their graves, it is not for me to estimate : I 
shall content myself with the much easier task of 
shewing, that his lordship's account of the matter is 
totally void of all foundation. 

The great Augustine wrote Enarrations, intermin- 
gled with discourses, on all the hundred and fifty 
psalms of the ancient Hebrew church. Now the 
bishop of Aire, I presume, will not maintain, that 
these Enarrations were composed for the exclusive 
benefit of pagans and catechumens. Lest that, 
however, should turn out to be the case, I shall begin 
with demonstrating, that they must have been writ- 
L 2 



126 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

ten for the edification of the baptized or the mystx 
or the initiated. 

From Jerome and Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem 
we learn, that the high doctrines of Christ's godhead 
and the Holy Trinity were not revealed to the cate- 
chumens until the forty days which immediately pre- 
ceded their baptism; when they passed, from the 
lower class of the junior catechumens, to the upper 
class of the competentes or illuminated."^ Now 
Augustine's Enarrations on the Psalms explicitly and 
unreservedly set forth those high doctrines.! There- 
fore Augustine's Enarrations must have been written 
for the benefit of the mystse, who had been initiated 
into all the arcane doctrines of the secret discipline, 
and who consequently must have well known the 
doctrine of transubstantiation, had it really been num- 
bered among those arcane doctrines, 

Augustine's Enarrations, then, were assuredly 
written for the benefit of the viystse. Consequently, 
even on the bishop's own statement of the matter, 
we may be certain, that, whatever he says in his 
Enarrations respecting the Eucharist, is the true and 
unveiled doctrine of the early catholic church. 

Now it is in these identical Enarrations, clearly 
written for the benefit of those who had been initiated 
into the mysteries, that Augustine not only calls the 
consecrated elements the figure of our Lord^s body 
and blood; but also unambiguously declares, that in 
the Eticharist we do not eat and drink the literal 
body and blood of Christy for the words of the 
Saviour in the institution of that sacrament are 
to be SPIRITUALLY understood.% 

2. What then, it may be asked, is the meaning of 
those various strong passages, which the bishop has 

* See above, Book I. chap. vi. § I. 2. 

f August. Enart. in Psalm, xliv. vulg. xlv. Oper. vol. viii. p. 
144, 145. 

^ August- Enarr. in Psalm, iii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 7. Enarr. in 
Psalm, xcviii. Oper. vol. viii. p. 397. 



LATIN DEFENCE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 127 

produced with such learned copiousness from the 
ancient liturgies and the early fathers? 

The key to such passages is furnished by the 
fathers themselves; and I have already produced it 
with quite sufficient evidence. While Augustine 
tells us, that the consecrated elements are only the 
figure of Christ^s body and blood; and while he 
assures us, that we do not eat the Lord's literal flesh, 
and that we do not drink the Lord's literal blood in 
the blessed Eucharist: the early ecclesiastical writers 
intimate, after a manner which cannot be mistaken, 
that the change in the consecrated elements, whereof 
they speak so repeatedly and so strongly, isa change^ 
Xioi physical, but moraL^ 

* See above,. Book I. chap. iv. ^ II. 1, 2, 



128 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Respecting the Rise and Pt^ogress, and Final 
Establishment of the Doctrine of Transubstan- 
tiation. 

I HAVE shown that the early fathers, from the 
very necessity of the illustrations which they em- 
ploy, could have recognized no change in the conse- 
crated elements, save a moral change : I shall now 
show, that the same conclusion must inevitably be 
drawn from the nature and purport of their argu- 
ments; for they actually argue against the doctrine 
of a physical change, in favour of the doctrine of a 
moral change. 

This very curious part of my subject I the rather 
take up, because it gives me an opportunity of briefly 
stating the rise and progress, and final establishment 
of the novelty denominated transubstantiation, 

I. In the course of the fifth centur}^, sprang up the 
heresy, which owed its birth to the fertile brain of 
Eutyches. 

Availing himself of the language, which, though 
w^ith abundant explanation of its real meaning, had 
been employed in the ancient liturgies and by the 
earlier fathers, this speculatist ingeniously contrived 
to make it the basis of the doctrine which he wished 
to introduce. 

The language in question he chose to interpret, as 
it had never been previously understood, in the sense 
of its teaching the doctrine of a physical change in 
the consecrated elements. Whence, according to 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 129 

Theodoret, his argument, in favour of the heresy from 
himself denominsited JE 7^ fi/chiams7?i, r^n in manner 
following: — 

tds the symhols of the Lord^s body and blood are 
one things before their consecration by the priest; 
but, AFTER their consecration, are physically 
changed and become quite another thing: so the 
material body of the Lord, after its assumption, 
IV as physically changed into the divine substance!^ 

Thus ran the argument of Eutyches, as placed by 
Theodoret in the mouth of Eranistes, an imaginary 
Eutychian speaker in one of his dialogues. 

1. Now, against this same Eranistes. by way of 
exhibiting orthodoxy as orthodoxy stood in the fifth 
century, Theodoret brings an opponent^ whom he 
characteris-tically denominates Orthodoxies, Eranis- 
tes propounds his argument, as I have given it above^ 
built professedly on the dWeged physical change in 
the consecrated elem.ents: but Orthodoxus imme- 
diately demolishes it by an explicit denial of the 
premises on which it is founded. 

" You are caught,^^ says he, " in the net which you 
' yourself have woven. For the mystical symbols^ 
'after consecration, pass not out of their own 
^nature: inasmuch as they still remain in their 
'original substance and form and appearance; 
'and they may be seen and touched, just as they 
' were before consecration. But they are understood 
' to be what they become : and they are venerated, as 
' being those things which they are believed to be, 
' Compare, therefore, the image with the archetype; 
^and you wall perceive their resemblance: for the 
'type must needs be similar to the truth,^^^ 

Such is the replication of Orthodoxus, propounded, 
as his very name implies, on behalf of the orthodox 
catholic church of the fifth century: and I wholly 

♦ Theod. Dial. ii. Oper. vol. iv. p. 84. Lut. Paris, 1642, 
t Theod. Dial. ii. p. 85. 



130 DIFPICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

mistake its purport, if, while Eutychianism is defended 
on the principle of a physical change in the conse- 
crated elements, orthodoxy be not defended on the 
directly opposite principle of a moral change alone 
in the consecrated elements. 

I am the less fearful of misapprehending the import 
of the rejoinder framed by Orthodoxus, because I 
find the doctrine of a moral^ as contradistinguished 
from a physical, change, expressly maintained by 
the same speaker in yet another of Theodoret's 
dialogues. 

" Jacob,^^ says Orthodoxus, "called the blood of 
' the Saviour the blood of the grape. For, if the 
' Lord be denominated a vine, and if the fruit of the 
' vine be called wine, and if from the side of the 
^ Lord fountains of blood and water circulating through 
' the rest of his body passed to the lower parts; well 
' and seasonably did the patriarch say, He washed his 
' garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of 
' grapes. As we then call the mystic fruit of the 
' vine, after its consecration, the blood of the Lord: 
^ so he called the blood of the true vine the blood 

* of the grape. — Oiir Saviour, indeed, changed the 

* names : for to his body he gave the name of the 
^ symbol, while to the symbol he gave the name of 
^ his blood: and, having called himself a vine, he 
' thence consistently applied the appellation of his 

* blood to the symbol. — But the scope of such lan- 
^ guage is perfectly familiar to those who have been 

* initiated into the mysteries. For our Lord required, 
' that they who partake of the divine mysteries should 
' not regard the nature of the things which they see, 
' but that in the change of names they should be- 
' lieve that change which is wrought by grace. In- 
^ asmuch as he, who called his own natural body 
' wheat and bread, and who further bestowed upon 
^himself the appellation of a vine: he also honoured 
' the visible symbols with the name of his body and 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 131 

* blood, not changing their nature^ 1mm adding 
' grace to natiire.^^^ 

The passage which I have here adduced is one of 
singular importance. In every point of viev^, it is 
fatal to the cause which the bishop of Aire has un- 
happily been led to espouse. 

The bishop denies the homogeneousness of the 
two expressions, / am the vine^ and This is my 
blood: whence he contends, that although the former 
ought to be interpreted figuratively, the latter ought 
doubtless to be interpreted literally.t But Ortho- 
doxus, in the fifth century, positively asserts their 
homogeneousness: for he teaches us, that the reason, 
WHY Christ denominated the sacramental wine his 
oion bloody was, because he had previously denomi- 
nated himself a vine. 

The bishop strenuously maintains the doctrine of 
a physical change in the consecrated elements. 
But Orthodoxus, even in so many words, denies it. 
Christ, says he, did not change the nature of the 
elements. 

The bishop assures us, that the doctrine of di phy- 
sical change was the grand secret of the mysteries. 
But Orthodoxus declares, that the language, which 
inculcates the doctrine of a7?zora/change,is perfectly 
familiar to, and well understood by, all those who 
have been initiated. 

2. In these latter days of unscriptural innovation, 
it is pleasing to behold a Roman pontiff, who flourished 
in the same centurywithEutyches and Theodoret, add- 
ing the sanction of his voice to that primitive doctrine 
of a moral change, which, so far as I know, was first 
impugned by a convicted and acknowledged heretic. 
In the attack upon the then germinating speculation 
of Eutychianism, Gelasius of Rome joined himself 
to Theodoret of Cyrus : and, as he had to oppose the 



* Theod. Dial. i. Oper. vol. iv. p. 17, 18. 
f Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 295. 



132 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

self-samdjpecious argument built upon the alleged 
circumstance of a physical change, he wisely op- 
posed it with the self-same weapons. 

'' Certainly/^ says he, " the sacraments of the body 
' and blood of the Lord, which we receive, are a 
Mivine thing: because by these we are made par- 
^ takers of the divine nature. Nevertheless, Me sub- 
' stance 07^ nature of the bread and wine ceases not 
^ to exist : and, assuredly, the image and similitude 
' of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the 
' action of the mysteries.'^^ 

Here again we may observe, that Gelasius, while 
he speaks of the elements being the image and simili' 
tude of Christ's body and blood, expressly denies 
the doctrine of any physical change. "The sub- 
stance or nature of the bread and wine,'^ says he, 
" ceases not to exist.'' 

3. Unhappily, the sound declarations of Theodo- 
ret's Orthodoxus, though supported by all the author- 
ity of Pope Gelasius, do not seem to have had 
any effect on the Eutychians. They still retained 
their novel doctrine of a physical change; and they 
still employed it as an argument to demonstrate the 
physical change of our Lord's material body into the 
substance of the godhead. Hence, about the middle 
of the sixth century, Ephrem of Antioch was com- 
pelled to resume the weapons of Theodoret and 
Gelasius. 

^'No man of common sense," he observes, " will 
^ assert, that the nature of things palpable and im- 
' palpable, visible and invisible, is the same. Thus 
' the body of Christy which is received by the faith- 
'fulj does not depart from its own sensible sub- 
' stance, though, by virtue of consecration, it is 
' united to a spiritual grace : and thus baptism, 
' though a spiritual thing itself, yet preserves the 



* Gelas. de duab. Christ. Natur. cont. Nestor, et Eutych. in 
Biblioth. Patr. vol. iv. p. 422. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 133 

' water which is the property of its sensible sub- 
^ stance; it loses not what it was before.^^"^ 

The same doctrine of a moral change only in the 
elements, and the same strenuous opposition to the 
novel Eutychian doctrine of a physical change, pre- 
vailed, we see, in the time of Ephrem, as well as in 
the time of Theodoret and Gelasius. Ephrem, on 
the true principle of analogical homogeneity, brings 
the two holy sacraments into immediate comparative 
juxtaposition. The symbols of bread and wine, he 
argues, are no more physically changed into the 
body and blood of Christ, than the symbol of water 
is physically changed into the inward moral grace of 
baptism. In neither case do the material elements 
depart from their own sensible substance or nature. 
They are severally united^ indeed, by virtue of con- 
secration, to a spiritual grace; but the spiritual grace 
is superadded to the material symbols. As for the 
symbols themselves, they experience no physical 
change. The bread and wine, in the one sacrament, 
still remain bread and wine: just as the water, in 
the other sacrament, still remains water. 

II. From this determined opposition at its com- 
mencement, we might well have imagined, that the 
doctrine of 2. physical change could never have esta- 
blished itself in any branch of the catholic church: 
but the event has demonstrated the possibility of the 
fact. 

Although the doctrine of a physical change was 
first started by a heretic, and although it was strenu- 
ously opposed by a Roman pontiff, it gradually 
worked its. way into ecclesiastical favour. In the 
fifth and sixth centuries, the doctrine of EutycheSj 
in regard to a physical change, was condemned as 
heretical: but, in the year 787, having now attained 
the respectable antiquity of about three hundred 
years, it was decreed to be orthodox by the fathers 

• Ephrem. Antioch. cont. Eutych. apud Phot. Cod. 229. 

M 



134 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

of the second Council of Nice. Reversing the deci- 
sion of the seventh Ecumenical Council, that the 
only legitimate image or representation of Christ 
ivas the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucha- 
rist; reversing this decision of their predecessors, 
who met at Constantinople in the year 754, and de- 
nying to their synod the very name of a council, for 
no better reason than because they themselves dif- 
fered from it in opinion, the fathers of the second 
Nicene Council pronounced, that the Eucharist is not 
the Tnere image of Christ^s body and blood, but that 
it is Christ^s body and blood their own literal and 
proper and physical selves."^ *» 

III. Still, however, though at length sanctioned 
by a council, the doctrine was in a rude and indi- 
gested state: it had received many severe blows, dur- 
ing its rugged infancy, from Theodoret and Pope Gela- 
sius5 and it had with difficulty passed through the 
period of a sickly and precarious childhood, branded 
wdth the impress of heresy, and disowned alike by 
the West and by the East. 

A brighter day, however, was now beginning to 
dawn upon it. An ecumenical council, though at the 
expense of contradicting another council, had recog- 
nised the orthodoxy of its general principle : but to 
Paschase of Corby, in the ninth century, must justly 
be ascribed the honour of having first reduced it into 
a compact and well-arranged system. If not, in ab- 
solute strictness of speech, its original parent, he 
may certainly vindicate to himself the praise of hav- 
ino; been its careful and tender foster-father. Pas- 
chase^ says Cardinal Bellarmine, was the first who 
wrote seriously and copiowsly concerning the truth 
of Christ^s body and blood in the EucharistA 

* 1 cannot understand the words of the council in any other 
sense: and, of course, every Romanist will ag'ree with me. — See 
Concil. Nicen. secund. act. vi. Labb. Concil. Sacros. vol. vii. p. 
448, 449. 

f Bellarm. de Scriptor. Eccles. 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 135 

IV. Such was the gradual progress of the tenet, 
from its first invention by Eutyches, to its final com- 
pletion by Paschase. Nevertheless, many years 
elapsed, before the church of Rome ventured to im- 
press upon it, in its matured state, the seal of indis-r 
putable verity and the obligation of universal belief. 

In the year 1079, indeed, Pope Gregory the 
Seventh, in a synod then assembled at Rome, com- 
pelled Berenger, who had opposed the Eutychian 
novelty, to acknowledge, that the bread and wine, 
placed upon the altar, are substantially and physi- 
cally changed into the true, and proper, and literal 
flesh and blood of Christ by virtue of the prayer of 
consecration. But it was not until the fourth coun- 
cil of Lateran, in the year 1215, that Pope Innocent 
the Third finally enjoined and imposed upon the 
whole body of the faithful, as a necessary article of 
Christian faith, the present doctrine of transubstan- 
tiation.* 

V. It is worthy of note, that, as Theodoret and 
Pope Gelasius opposed the doctrine of a physical 
change, when it was first started by Eutyches ; so 
Raban Maurus, archbishop of Mentz, equally opposed 
it, when it was revived and digested by Paschase of 
Corby. 

" Some persons^ of late^'^^ says that prelate, '^ not 
^entertaining a sound opinion respecting the sacra- 
^ ment of the body and blood of our Lord, have 
^ actually ventured to declare, that this is the identi- 
' cal body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ; the 
' identical body to wit, which was born of the Virgin 

* Mary, in which Christ sufiered upon the cross, and 
' in which he rose from the dead. This error we 

* have opposed with all our mighty^ 

* Before the fourth Lateran Council, says Tonstal of Durham, 
men were at liberty as to the manner of Chi^isfs presence in the sa- 
crament.— Tonsil}, de Euchar. lib. i. p. 146. 

f Raban. Maur. Epist. ad Heribald. c. xxxiii. The bishop of 
Aire makes a very siiig-ular mistake in roundly asserting, that the 



136 DIEFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

The language of the archbishop is very remarkable 
in three several points of view. 

doctrine of transubstantiation was, for the first time^ directly at- 
tacked by Bereng'er in the eleventh century. — Discuss. Amic. vol. 
ii. p. 120. His lordship does not seem to have been aware of the 
zealous opposition made to this identical doctrine, in the ninth 
century, by Raban of Mentz, and many other assertors of what> 
until my evidence be set aside, I shall venture to call the old 
faith. 

On the disagreements among Luther and Calvin and Zuingle 
respecting the doctrine of the Eucharist, the bishop is superflu- 
ously copious. 

I see nothing extraordinary in the fact, that, when men first 
open their eyes from a deep slumber, their vision should for a 
season be defective in clearness. Be this, however, as it may, we 
of the Anglican church are no way bound to answer for the diffe- 
rences of the continental reformers. AVe are neither Lutherans, 
nor Calvinists, nor Zuinglians : we have received our appellation^ 
as Chrysostom speaks (Homil. xxxiii. in Act. Apost. xv. Oper. 
vol. viii. p. 680.),f7'om the faith itself : we are catholics of the An- 
glican church, no less than the bishop of Aire is a catholic of the 
Gallican church. Certainly we honour both Luther and Calvin 
and Zuingle for their works' sake : but the bishop greatly errs, 
if he imagines that we erect any one of them into our spiritual 
master. 

Yet, though I feel myself no way pledged to act as an umpire 
between these three eminent foreigners, I cannot quite so readily 
pass over the attack, which the bishop of Aire has made upon 
one of our own most venerable English prelates. 

On the authority of Smith, bishop of Chalcedon, his lordship 
informs us, that Bishop Jewel charged his chaplain to publish to 
the world after his death, that all which he had written against the 
Romish doctrine had heen written against his conscience and the 
truth, and that he had thus acted purely to pay his court to the queen^ 
and to prop up the religion which she had introduced. — Discuss. 
Amic. vol. ii. p. 135. 

Thus condescends the respectable bishop of Aire to calumni- 
ate an English prelate on the testimony of a man, who published 
his pretended facts, not in the reign of Elizabeth, and in England; 
but in the year 1654, and at Paris; thus condescends the bishop 
to mislead an English layman, forgetting, or ignorant, that this 
very Jewel, before the accession of Elizabeth, and during the 
reign of her sister, had been ejected from all his preferment for 
his stout adherence to the primitive catholic faith, and had him- 
self escaped the flames only by a timely flight to the continent. 

Jewel is not the only EngUsh divine whom the bishop has un- 
dertaken to misrepresent. He further claims, as favourable to 



RISE AND PROGRESS OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 137 

Without the slightest hesitation, he pronounces 
the doctrine to be an error, which he himself was 
strenuously opposing: by the use of the word some, 
he clearly testifies, as a naked matter of fact ^ that, 
in his time, the doctrine was held only by a few ad- 
venturous admirers of Paschase: and, by the expres- 
sion OF late, he no less clearly indicates, also as a 
naked matter of factj that the doctrine, though its 
outlines might have been traced by Eutyches, and 
recognised by the second Nicene Council, was, in 
the ninth century, resisted as a palpable innovation."*" 

the doctrine of tr an substantiation, Forbes and Thorndike, and 
Montague and Parker. — Discuss. Amic. vol. i. p. 333 — 336. 

Bishop Forbes merely says, what I have myself said, that he 
would not undertake to pronounce the doctrine of transub- 
stantiation an impossible absurdity : and as for Thorndike, Mon- 
tague, and Parker, they simply maintain, what the church of 
England has ever maintained, a change produced in the elements 
by virtue of consecration. For this doctrine they refer to the fa- 
thers ; and, with good reason, do they thus refer. The fathers, 
like themselves, held the doctrine of a change indeed : but that 
change was a moral, not a physical one. 

Such controversial stratagems, in a work professedly addressed 
to the English laity, are unworthy of the bishop of Aire. His 
lordship must surely have known, that the divines of the Angli- 
can church hold the doctrines of a real presence, and of a change 
in the consecrated elements, after a totally different manner from 
the divines of the Latin church. A layman, however, not con- 
versant in these topics, might easily be perplexed by his state- 
ment. 

* The bishop of Meaux roundly asserts, that, both in the East 
and in the West, the doctrine of transubstantiation was unani- 
mously adopted from the words of our Lord, without causing the 
least trouble or opposition: and he adds, that those who believed 
it were never marked by the church as innovators. — Hist, des 
Variat. livr. ii. § 36. 

Greatly did I marvel when I read this extraordinary passage. 
Is it possible, then, that the mass of evidence to the direct contrary^ 
which I have now produced, can have been utterly unknown to 
such a man as the learned Bossuet? Is it possible that he can have 
been ignorant, that Pope Gelasius in the West, and Theodoret of 
Cyrus in the East, synchronically, and with one accord, opposed 
the new doctrine of a physical change in the consecrated elements, 
when it was first started by the Eutychians in the fifth century ? 
Is it possible, that these and the other facts which I have brought 
forward, can never have come within the cognizance of this very 
m2 



138 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

Raban of Mentz, as we might well expect, was 
not the only opponent of the Paschasian novelty. 
It was equally impugned by Heribald of Auxerre, 
Amalar of Triers, Bertram of Corby, Walafrid Strabo, 
Christian Druthmar, Drepanius Florus, and John Scot 
Erigena. 

able and acute Latin prelate ? To omit what a Romanist would 
deem the inferior authorities of Theodoret and Ephrem and Fa- 
cundus and Raban of Mentz, a direct censure upon the palpable 
novelty of Si physical ch^iuge was specially pronounced by the pre' 
siding pope himself, Gelasius, the lawful head of the universal 
church for the time being, expressly declared, with the full con- 
currence of that church, and even in controversial opposition to the 
then new dogma of a physical change, that the substance or nature 
of the bread and wine ceases not to exist. Yet does the bishop of 
Meaux fearlessly assert, that the doctrine of transubstantiation was 
unanimously adopted, both in the East and in the West, without 
causing the least trouble: yet does he intrepidly pronounce, that 
those who beheved it were never marked by the church as inno- 
vators upon primitive antiquity! 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 139 



CHAPTER IX. 

The Difficulties of Romanism in respect to Auricu- 
lar Confession^ as imposed and enforced by the 
Church of Rome. 

Auricular confession to a priest the church of 
England a//oi^^, and in some csises reconiTnejids: the 
church of Rome not only allows diud recoTnmends it; 
but, also, as a matter of strict religious obligation, 
imposes and enforces it. 

Such being the case, if the bishop of Aire wish to 
convict the Anglican church of error, it will be his 
business to shew, that auricular confession to a priest 
is, not merely a point of option, hut apoint of strict 
religious duty and absolute necessary obligation. 
Accordingly, his lordship undertakes to perform this 
task, partly from Scripture, and partly from the 
practice of ecclesiastical antiquity.* 

I. To discover in Scripture any explicit command 
either of Christ or of his apostles, that we should 
regularly make auricular confession to a priest, was 
a thing altogether impracticable. The bishop, there- 
fore, does not attempt it. Yet, what cannot be 
proved explicitly, may be proved, he thinks, induc- 
tively. 

1. "The power of the keys, or the right of abso- 
* lution and retention,^' he argues, " has been given 
< by Christ to his apostles and to their lawfully con- 

* Discuss. Amic* Lett. xL 



140 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

^ secrated successors. "^ But this power cannot be 

* effectively exercised without auricular confession. 

* Therefore^ by a necessary consequence from Holy 
^ Scripture, the religious obligation of auricular con- 
^ fession has been demonstrated/^ 

Of this syllogism I am willing to allow the con- 
clusiveness, whensoever the bishop shall have proved, 
that the power of the keys cannot be effectively ex- 
ercised without auricular confession as practised 
in the church of Rome. 

That important point he labours, no doubt, to 
prove ; because he is conscious, that, without such 
proof, his syllogism is invalid. But, even upon his 
own principle of the power of the keys, as that 
power is interpreted by himself he has laboured in- 
effectually. 

The granting or the withholding of sacerdotal ab- 
solution, the bishop reasonably makes to depend upon 
the actual dispositions of the sinner. t Hence the 
question is, How these actual dispositions are to be 
' ascertained ? 

Now, as the bishop truly remarks, spiritual judges 
can no more read the thoughts and hearts of sinners, 
than any other persons. What then is to be done in 
order to a just absolution or retention ? 

The bishop says, that we must needs have auricu- 
lar confession. For, without auricular confession, we 
cannot ascertain the actual dispositions of sinners: 
and, unless the actual dispositions of sinners be as- 
certained, the granting or the withholding of sacer- 
dotal absolution cannot be rightly and effectually 
exercised. 

Such, in full, is his lordship's argument from 
Scripture. The point, wherein it fails, is the defect 
of proof, that we cannot ascertain the actual dispo- 
sitions of sinners without auricular confession. 

* Mat. xviii. 18. John xx. 21—23. 
t Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 144. 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 141 

2. There is a fallacy in the terms employed by the 
bishop, which may very possibly have escaped even 
himself. He speaks of auricular confession ; but he 
does not define what he means by the phrase. Yet, 
to the validity of his argument, an accurate definition 
is of the first importance, 

Jiuricular confession simply means confession 
into the ear of a priest. But such confession may 
be either general or particular. 

That the auricular confession, defended by the 
bishop, \s particular di\JiT\Q,\i\Bx confession, cannot be 
doubted ; for this is the species of confession imposed 
and enforced by the church of Rome. In his argu- 
ment, however, we hear nothing of particular con- 
fession. Had confession been thus defined, the utter 
inconclusiveness of his reasoninig would immediately 
have appeared : for, in truth, a particular confession 
of sins is no way necessary for the ascertaining of 
the actual dispositions of sinners. This will suffi- 
ciently appear from the following brief comparative 
statement : — ■ 

On the one hand, then, a man may dtily and ex- 
actly confess all his sins to a priest, without any 
concealment or extenuation ; and he may express the 
utmost degree of sorrow for what he has done, with 
full purposes of amendment. Yet, in the actual dispo- 
sitions of his mind, he may be a mere superstitious 
hypocrite, who has unhappily taken up the delusive 
notion, that a priest, under any circumstances, must 
possess the absolute and unconditional power of con- 
ferring an irrecoverable absolution. 

On the other hand, without a single specification 
in detail^ a man may bitterly confess to his sacerdo- 
tal friend, that he has deeply sinned against God, that 
he has offended in numerous instances against his 
most holy laws, that his besetting sin weighs heavily 
upon his conscience. And all this he may do with 
such fervency and anguish of spirit, as to evince the 
true penitent, unto whom the remembrance of his 



142 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

misdoings is grievous, and the burden of them is in- 
tolerable. 

Here we have two cases of confession : the one, 
constructed upon the principle of the Latin church, 
which requires confession in detail ; the other, con- 
structed upon the principle of the English church, 
which demands no confession of particulars beyond 
what the penitent is willing to make of his own free 
accord. 

Now the bishop's argument, if it would at all serve 
the cause which he has been led to espouse, must 
prove, that we cannot ascertain the actual disposi- 
tions of sinners without hearing a particular and 
specific confession of all their sins. But this it 
does NOT prove. For nothing can be more clear, than 
that those dispositions may be ascertained, so far as 
fallible man can ascertain them, just as well from a 
general confession of sinfulness, as from ihdXparticu- 
lar confession of every distinct sin which the church 
of Rome requires in order to a just absolution. 

II. Since the bishop has thus totally failed of prov- 
ing, from Scripture, the religious obligation of auricu- 
lar confession, as enforced and practised in the Latin 
church, I see not how it is possible to establish the 
point from any mere human ordinance. Yet, even if 
this were granted, which never can be granted, still 
the bishop will again be found to have totally failed 
on his own selected ground of ecclesiastical anti- 
quity. ^ 

It will be recollected, that the dispute between his 
lordship and myself respects neither the existence nor 
the lawfulness of auricular confession, whether ge- 
neral or particular : our dispute simply respects its 
alleged necessity and religious obligation upon the 
conscience. Hence, in recurring to ecclesiastical an- 
tiquity, it was the business of the bishop to establish 
the latter point which is denied^ not the former point 
which is admitted, 

!2!ow, to establish the latter point, the point with 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 143 

which ALONE he was concerned^ he has not brought 
even so much as the shadow of a proof. 

1. His oldest evidence is the venerable testimony 
of the Roman Clement, the friend and fellow-labourer 
of St. Paul. I subjoin it, precisely as given by the 
bishop himself; and, if it prove the point which he 
has undertaken to establish, I acknowledge myself to 
be a vanquished disputant. 

So long as lue continue in this world, says the 
holy Clement, let its repent sincerely of all the evil 
which we have committed in the flesh, For^ ivhen 
once ice quit the worlds no further opportunity is 
afforded us either of confession or of penitence.^ 

His next oldest evidence is Irenaeus, who flourish- 
ed chiefly during the latter half of the second century: 
for as his lordship produces not the testimony either 
of Polycarp or Ignatius or Justin, I conclude that no 
such testimony could be discovered. 

To Irenseus I have carefully followed him, accord- 
ing to his own two references ; but Irenaeus says not 
a single syllable to his purpose. 

In the first of the two passages, we have an account 
of an impostor named Mark^ who seduced many silly 
women to join his party, and whose conduct was not 
remarkable for its correctness. The greater part of 
these women, having been at length happily reclaim- 
ed, confessed, that the impostor had strangely gained 
their aflections, and that he had infamously abused 
the influence which he had acquired.f 

From the second of the two passages we learn, that 
the heretic Cerdon, in his better days I suppose, 
often went to church and made confession: but, 
whether he confessed particularly to a priest, or whe- 
ther he joined in a general liturgical confession of his 
sins to God, Irenaeus does not inform us.J 

3. The bishop's next witness, as adduced in chron- 

* Clem. Epist. ad Corinth, ii. § 8. 

f Iren. adv. Hccr. lib. i, c. 9. ^ Ibid, lib, iii, c. 4. 



# 



144 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM. 

ological order, is Tertullian ; who lived at the latter 
end of the second and at the beginning of the third 
century. 

I have followed his lordship to Tertullian: but 
the testimony of that learned father strikes me as 
being rather adverse, than favourable, to his cause. 
Doubtless Tertullian speaks of confession revealing a 
crime, of confession being the counsel of satisfaction, 
of a penitent falling prostrate before the presbyters 
and altars of God, of a penitent bending low at the 
knees of his brethren, of the impossibility of conceal- 
ing our sins from the Lord though we may hide 
them from men; of all these several matters he 
doubtless speaks in a style somewhat verbose and 
declamatory: but then, in the very passage wherein 
he speaks of them, he describes confession as being 
made, not to a priest^ but to the Lord,^ 

4. The bishop's most promising evidence, which 
therefore I have reserved to the last, is that of 
Socrates and Sozomen. But the matter, which they 
notice, even if we make the most of it, comes too 
late by about three hundred years: for a mere canon 
of the church, at the end of the fourth century, can- 
not religiously bind upon the conscience, what St. 
John, the last surviving apostle, by his silence left a 
matter of option at the end of the first century. 

I have followed the bishop to both those ecclesias- 
tical historians; and small, I fear, is the emolument 
which his cause can derive from either of them. 

The story, which they tell, is this. In the reign 
of Theodosius, aboutt he end of the fourth century, 
a canon of the church removed the presbyters, who 
had been wont publicly to hear the confessions of 
the penitent: for this discipline, which plainly 
enough originated from the public confessions of the 
lapsed ere they were readmitted into the bosom of 
the church, was found to be intolerable as an ordi- 

* TertuU. de Pcenit. § ix. p. 483. 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 145 

nary practice. In the room of these displaced pres- 
byters, another canon enjoined, that in each city 
there should be appointed a certain discreet presby- 
ter, to whom a secret might be safely entrusted, and 
who henceforth should hear confessions privately. 
For a short time, the new machine worked tolerably 
well; but an unhappy affair soon occurred at Con- 
stantinople, the particulars of which I think it no 
way necessary to detail. The culprit was, of course, 
immediately degraded; but the indignation of the 
people, not very reasonably, was directed against the 
whole body of the priesthood. Reasonably, however, 
or unreasonably, still, in matter of fact, it was so 
directed ; and Nectarius, the archbishop or patriarch, 
was not a little perplexed what to do. In this emer- 
gency, the presbyter Eudemon gave him advice, 
which Socrates censures, but which Nectarius fol- 
lowed. The new plan of auricular confession to a 
priest was abolished ; and each person was freely ad- 
mitted to the holy communion, according as, in the 
presence of God, he judged himself to be in a fit 
state of preparation.* 

Such is the joint narrative of Socrates and Sozo- 
men. If it can at all further the bishop's object, I 
have no wish to deprive him of its full benefit. 

5. But the bishop will say, that, although abolished 
in the East ere it had well commenced, the practice, 
by the very testimony of Sozomen himself, still pre- 
vailed in the western churches, and more especially 
in the Roman church, t 

Certainly it did : but, so far as I can discern, this 
is no satisfactory proof of its absolute necessity and 
of its religious ohligation upon the conscience; 
the matter, if I mistake not, whic^ his lordship has 
undertaken to establish. Yet, even in Italy, for the 
disgraceful truth must be confessed, the new system 

* Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 19. Sozomen. Hist. Eccles. 
lib. vii. c. 16. 

t Sozomen. Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. c. 16. 

N 



146 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

was far from meeting with universal acceptance. 
Ambrose of Milan patronised it: but, as the bishop 
remarks, it is too true, that already, even in his time, 
some insensates, under a pretext since developed at 
the reformation, refused to submit to this ministra- 
tion of the priests. Their refusal, it seems, was 
grounded upon a deference to the supreme majesty 
of God, who (as they imagined) could alone pardon 
sins; and, according to the bishop, they were fully 
confuted by Ambrose: but they do not appear to 
have been themselves Q.Qx\V\nQ.^di by that learned pre- 
late's argument.^' They conceived, I apprehend, 
that absolution, pronounced by a priest, was only 
conditional and declarative: conditional, as the bishop 
himself seems to admit; declarative, as the church of 
England additionally inclines to conjecture. Hence, 
if sacerdotal absolution could be procured only on 
the rack of auricular confession, they ventured to 
think, that the absolution of God, after such a con- 
fession to the Lord as Tertullian defines primitive 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 187. The bishop, I regret to observe,' 
condescends to make, as it were, a Scriptural doctrine, that 
strange distinction between repentance and doing penance, which 
is one of the many unaccountable delights of the Latin church. 

Repentance, he tells us, is the principle of the reformation: 
but this is not sufficient: we must also confess and do penance. 

Now I beg to ask. Where is there a single passage in the whole 
New Testament, which enjoins the performance of a Latin 
penance as necessary to eternal salvation?. 

An uneducated Romanist will tell us, that penance is enjoined 
ag'ain and again in Holy Scripture; but the bishop of Aire is not 
an uneducated Romanist. He knows perfectly well, that the 
expressions /?e??«??ce and to do penance, which perpetually occur in 
tlie Romish versions of the New Testament, do not exhibit the 
true idea of the original words /uirdvoia and ^AiTAvoiiv. Those 
words, from the very necessity of their etymology, relate, not to 
the outward austeritiefwiiich the Latin church enjoins under the 
name o^ penance, but purely and exclusively to that moral change 
of mind which we denominate repentance. 

By this lamentable, and (T fear) systematic, mistranslation of 
the Greek original, thousands and millions may have been se- 
duced into a scheme of mere unauthorized and mis-deemed meri- 
torious will-worship. 



AURICULAR CONFESSION. 147 

confession to have been, might peradventure be 
equally beneficial and efficacious."^ 

* Exomolog'esis est, qua delictum Domino nostrum confitemur, 
non quidem ut ig-naro; sed quatenus satisfactio confessione dis- 
ponitur, confessione pocnitentia nascitur, poenitentia Deus mitig-a- 
tur.— Tertull. de Poenit. § ix. p. 483. 



148 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 



CHAPTER X. 

The Difficulties of Romanism in regard to the 
Doctrine of Satisfaction. 

The Romish doctrine of satisfaction is stated by 
the bishop of Aire in manner following: — 

We are all sinful creatures; and we might justly 
have been devoted to endless punishment. But 
Christ laid down his life for us upon the cross; and, 
through the alone meritorious efficacy of his death 
and sufferings, we are exempted from the dreadful 
penalty of everlasting woe. Yet, although the Sa- 
viour, by the infinite value of his blood, might no 
doubt have delivered us both from eternal punish- 
ment and from transitory punishment; in matter of 
fact J it has pleased him to deliver us only from the 
former. The latter, as justly due to our sins, he has 
left us still to undergo. Whence, consequently, we 
must undergo it, either in the present world, or in 
the next world, or jointly in both worlds. Now the 
undergoing of this transitory punishment is what the 
Latin church denominates a making of satisfaction 
to the justice of God,^ 

The moral efficacy, then, of Christ's death, so far 
as I can understand the bishop's statement, may be 
thus briefly specified. Our Lord^s meritorious pas- 
sion on the cross delivers us, indeed, from the 
eternal punishment of sin : but it does not avail 
to deliver us from its temporal punishment. 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xii. 



DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 149 

I. I wish that his lordship had been a little more 
explicit, in defining the precise idea which he would 
attach to the word satisfaction. Had he done that, 
some degree of trouble might have been saved. 

If, by the word satisfaction^ he means only to 
describe an undoubted fact^ ivhich presents itself 
daily before our eyes; certainly the most hardy dis- 
putant would not incline to controvert his statement. 

In the course of God's moral government, as we 
all know, effect is so suspended upon cause, that vice 
perpetually receives a temporal punishment. The 
deepest repentance and the most exalted piety of later 
life will not restore a constitution destroyed by early 
depravity. Pardon, indeed, through Christ, is accord- 
ed to the penitent sinner: but he is not, on that 
account, exempted from temporal punishment. To 
the hour of his death he pays the penalty of his long- 
forsaken and lono:-abhorred transo;ressions. 

Now, if this naked matter of fact be all that the 
bishop would express by the word satisfaction; or 
if he would include in the \di^^ punishments of sin ^ 
like that of David^ sent specially , and not in the 
mere ivay of cause and effect^ from God, I appre- 
hend, that, throughout all the protestant churches, 
he w^ould not find a single opponent. 

From much eloquent declamation, employed by 
the bishop in this precise line of argument, I had 
begun to hope, that one at least of our differences had 
originated from simple misapprehension: but my 
hope became more and more faint, as T advanced in 
my perusal of his lordship's discussion. 

Instead of viewing temporal punishment, either as 
a righteous retribution, or as a fatherly chastise- 
ment — the only two modes in which lean find it 
represented throughout Holy Scripture — the bishop, 
not content with gratuitously carrying it into the 
next world, seems evidently to consider it in the 
light of a meritoi-ious expiation made on our part, 
w^hen we either devoutly submit to it as sent from 
N 2 



150 DIFFICULTIES OF ROxMANISM. 

God, or when we freely and artificial!)^ inflict it upon 
ourselves. ^ I may be mistaken; and I hope that I am 
mistaken in my estimate of his lordship's theory: 
but, from his occasional intimations, though he never 
explicitly defines the word satisfaction^ I find it 
difficult to form any other conclusion.^ 

In my fear that I am not mistaken, I am painfully 
confirnjed by yet another mode in which the bishop 
seems inclined to view the Latin doctrine of satisfac- 
tion. 

It is not always^ he apprehends, that a man makes 
satisfaction to the justice of God by temporal suffer- 
ing: much also, he conceives, may be done in that 
way by w^hat he denominates satisfactory ivorks; 
such as, agreeably to his own express enumeration of 
them, abstinence, and fasting, and the care of widows 
and orphans, and alms giving, and the visitation of 
the sick; works, he observes, which in the Latin 
church are reckoned among the most important satis- 
factions.! 

The excellence^ and (under one aspect) the neces- 
sity^ of these good deeds, we of the reformed 
churches most fully allow, but this is not precisely 
the question. The bishop clearly deems them meri- 
torioiis: for, unless that be the case, I perceive not 
how they can make an expiatory satisfaction to God 
for our transgressions. Now it is under this precise 
idea of their alleged merit oriousness^ that the lan- 
guage and doctrine of our Latin brethren are thought 
by us to be objectionable. IVe acknowledge^ says the 
accurate Hooker, a dutiful necessity of doing 
well: but THE meritorious dignity of doing well 

* I give the bishop's own words. Satisfaire, autant qa'il est en 
nous, a la justice, de son Pere. — Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 211. 
Parce que nous sommes hors d'etat d'acquitter la dette entiere, 
serions nous dispenses de faire quelques efforts pour entrer en 
paiement suivant nosfacultes et nos moyens? — Ibid. p. 216. L*ob- 
lig-ation de satisfaire et apaiser le ciel par des oeuvres expiatoires. 
—Ibid. p. 221. 

f Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 222. 



DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 151 

we utterly renounce.* This, I believe, is the doc- 
trine, not only of the church of England, but of all 
the reformed churches; the doctrine, not only of the 
reformed churches, but of that venerable and most 
ancient church, w^hich, by a long line of succession 
connecting itself immediately with the primitive 
ages, may claim the high and extraordinary praise 
of not being a reformed church, simply because it 
required not reformation. With the depressed, but 
unextinguishable, church of the Piedmontese valleys, 
we all, if I mistake not, agree in this important point. 
We confess the duty, but not the merit, of good 
works: and, viewing them under that aspect, we 
thence consistently deny the possibility of their mak- 
ing any expiatory satisfaction to God for our trans- 
gressions. 

The same principle we, of course, extend to every 
species of temporal punishment. When sent from 
God, we would humbly submit to it: and, as the 
apostle speaks, we would deem it the fatherly chastise- 
ment of the Lord, '' at present, indeed, not joyous 
^ but grievous, nevertheless, afterward yielding the 
< peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them that are 
^ exercised thereby.'^! But, with such a view of 
the question, in the language of our own Hooker, 
'' We dare not call God to reckoning, as if we had 
' him in our debt-books. The little fruit which we 
^ have in holiness, it is, God knoweth, corrupt and 
^unsound. We put no confidence at all in it: we 
' challenge nothing in the world for it. Our constant 
' suit to God is and must be, to bear with our infir- 
^ mities, and to pardon our offences. ^'f 

In this lowly estimate even of our best perform- 
ances, we hold ourselves to be justified, not only by 
the express decision of Scripture, but by the entire 



* Hooker's Disc, of Justific. § vii. 

t Heb. xii. 5—11. 

\ Hooker's Disc, of Justific. § vii. 



152 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

analogy of the Christian faith. So far from calculat- 
ing a proportionable correspondence between vierit 
and reward; we deem it more seem! 37-, to adopt the 
words which our Saviour Christ hath prepared for 
us, and to confess that when we have done all, we 
have done nothing more than our bare duty:"^ in- 
stead of ascribing to our works any even remote pos- 
sibility of making satisfaction to God for our many 
evil deeds; the whole analogy of faith, as propounded 
luminously by the great apostle himself to the church 
of Rome, compels us to take up a doctrinal system 
diametrically opposite.! The doctrine of vierit^ and 
the doctrine of duty^ in short, lie at the very root of 
the differences between the church of Rome and the 
church of England. 

II. As usual, the bishop quotes the fathers in 
favour of his speculation: and it must be owned, that 
Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine, all 
speak of our making satisfaction to God by the tem- 
poral pains which we endure. 

If they use the term in his lordship's apparent 
sense, I shall have no hesitation in saying, that their 
grossly unscriptural language merely shows how soon 
and how easily a specious and flattering corruption 
crept into the church. But I greatly doubt, though 
I would speak under correction, whether their mean- 
ing has not been altogether misapprehended. We all 
know, that, in the idiom both of the Greek and of 
the Latin, the same phrase indiflerently signifies to 
give satisfaction and to suffer punishment. This 
very simple circumstance, I strongly suspect, is the 
true key to the phraseology employed by certain of 
the fathers. When they spake of a man making 
satisfaction to God for his sins by any measure of 
temporal suffering, they meant not, I apprehend, to 
intimate, that his pains were meritorious, and that 
they were capable of expiating his transgressions; 

* Luke xvii. 10. f Rom. ili. 19—28. v. 16—21. xi. 6. 



DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 153 

but they meant merely to say, that we must expect 
sin to be attended by merited punishment. 

Be this, however, as it may, if we are to be guided 
by the authority of the primitive doctors, I should 
certainly prefer the very ancient testimony of St. 
PauPs own fellow-labourer, the Roman Clement, to 
the much later evidence of Tertullian, or Cyprian, or 
Ambrose, or Augustine. 

'' All are glorified and magnified, not through 
^ themselves, or through their own works, or through 
' the righteous deeds which they have done, but 
' through the will of God. We, therefore, iDeing 
' called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not jus- 
' tified through ourselves, or through our own wis- 
' dom, or intellect, or piety, or the works which we 
^have wrought in holiness of heart; but through 
^ faith, by which the Almighty God hath justified all 
^from everlasting. To him be glory and honour 
' through all ages. What then shall we do, brethren? 
' Shall we be slothful from good deeds, and shall we 
^ desert the faith? The Lord forbid such to be our 
^case! Rather let us hasten, with all vehemence 
' and alacrity, to accomplish every good work.'^^ 

So far as di positive argument will go, it is diiEficult 
to believe, that the man who wrote thus could hold 
the doctrine of a meritorious satisfaction to be made 
to God either by holy deeds or by acute sufferings: 
and, so far as we may build upon a negative argu- 
ment, the total silence of Clement, in regard to any 
such satisfaction as that maintained by the bishop, 
affords much reason for suspecting, that in his days 
the catholic church knew nothing of the doctrine. 
JEqually difficult, unless I greatly mistake, will his 
lordship find the task of extracting his theory from 
the remains either of Polycarp or of Ignatius. 

III. The bishop asks, whether to appease the 

* Clem. Roman. Epist. ad Corinth, i. § 32, 33. 



154 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

anger of God^ and to satisfy his justice^ do not 
ultimately come to the same thing.^ 

I readily answer, no. The difference consists in 
the total dissimilarity of ideas conveyed respect- 
ively by those two phrases. Sincere repentance, 
offered up through the alone merits of Christ, is no 
doubt available to appease God^s anger^ when we 
have sinned against him: but such repentance does 
nothing to satisfy his justice in the way of making 
a meritorious expiation. To talk, indeed, of the 
expiatory meritoriousness of repentance is a plain 
contradiction in terms. By the very act of repent- 
ance we acknowledge ourselves to be sinners: but 
what possible expiatory meritoriousness can there be 
in a sorrowful acknowledgment and direct confession 
that w^e are great and undeserving offenders? Clearly 
there can be none: unless, indeed, we are prepared 
to maintain the actual existence of that moral para- 
dox, a meritorious sinner or a holy transgressor^ 

IV. It has been confidently asserted by the bishop, 
that Christ made satisfaction for our sins only so far 
as to exempt us from eternal punishment, and that 
we ourselves must supply the defect by undergoing 
temporal punishment, or by performing certain me- 
ritorious actions in the way of an expiatory satis- 
faction to God for our transgressions. This doctrine 
his lordship boldly avows to be the undoubted mind 
of Christ; and he claims to prove it, both from Scrip- 
ture and from the primitive church. 

Ineach line of argument he has completely failed. 
The earliest church is decidedly against him: and 



* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 222. 

f The bishop claims, as an ally, the proem of our commination 
office. It seems to me, when viewed in connexion with the whole 
tenor of our articles and homilies, merely to import, that penitence 
and fasting" are a useful mean of putting* our souls in a proper 
posture to meet their God. I cannot perceive any thing in it, 
which at all assimilates to the doctrine of meritorious expiatory 
satisfaction. 



DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 155 

his meagre proof from Scripture is limited to the 
mourning of Job on account of his trials, to the 
repentance of David, and Ahab, and the king of 
Nineveh, and to a singular perversion of a very plain 
passage of St. Paul, wherein the apostle speaks of the 
afflictions of Christ the head being filled up in the 
afflictions of his mystical body, the church. "^ How 
- these are to demonstrate, that either sufferings or 
good deeds can make temporal expiatory satisfac- 
tion to God for our varied transgressions,^ I am 
unable to comprehend. There is not so much as the 
slightest perceptible coherence between the bishop's 
premises artd his conclusion. When thrown into the 
form of a syllogism^ his whole argument runs in 
manner following: — 

Job m,ourned on account of his trials: Bavid^ 
and Ahab^ and the king of Nineveh^ repented in 
sackcloth and ashes : and the afflictions of Christ 
are still prolonged in the afflictions of his body^ 
the church. Therefore teinporal punishments 
and holy deeds are able^ by their expiatory meri- 
torious?iess, to satisfy the strict Justice of our hea- 
venly Father, 

In laying his foundation, the bishop has altogether 
failed; and the natural consequence will be the down- 
fall of his superstructure. As he himself is perfectly 
aware, for the whole plan of his discussion evinces it, 
the connected doctrines of indulgences, and purgatory, 
and prayers for the dead, all rest ultimately upon the 
basis of meritorious satisfaction. The basis being 
unsound, the superstructure cannot stand. 

* Coloss. i. 24. 



156 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 



CHAPTER XL 

The Difficulties of Romanism in respect to 
Indulgences. 

Indulgences sprang out of the penitential disci- 
pline of the primitive church. Persons, who had 
lapsed into idolatry, or who had been guilty of any 
scandalous crime, were separated by ecclesiastical 
authority from the body of the faithful : nor were they 
re-admitted, until, by a course of austere penitence, 
they had sufficiently evinced their sincerity and their 
amendment. The church, however, which, like every 
other well-organized society, possessed and exercised 
the power of ejecting or receiving members, was in- 
duced, when she had well-grounded reason to believe 
repentance sincere, occasionally to relax the severity, 
or to shorten the time of this required probation. 
When that was done, the grace, accorded to the peni- 
tent, was naturally styled an indulgence. 

Such, and such only, were the indulgences of the 
primitive church : and I know not what objection can 
be rationally taken to the system of her moral disci- 
pline. 

But, when the unscriptural notion of a meritorious 
expiatory satisfaction to God was annexed to the 
ancient probationary penance required by the church, 
the same idea infected also the simple primitive in- 
dulgence. If self-inflicted punishment for sin, or 
punishment inflicted by ecclesiastical authority, could 
make an expiatory satisfaction to the divine justice: 
then the power of remitting such punishment was 
equivalent to the power of declaring, that the church, 



INDULGENCES.' 157 

according to her own good pleasure and discretion, 
could assign to the divine justice a smaller measure of 
expiatory satisfaction than thai justice would other- 
wise have claimed. Now this extraordinary specula- 
tion, in pursuance of which the church undertook to 
determine, that God not unfrequently was and ought 
to be satisfied with a lighter degree of expiation, than 
his own justice, if left to itself, would have exacted 
from the offender: this extraordinary speculation 
sprang naturally and of necessity from the new doc- 
trine of an expiatory satisfaction to God engrafted 
upon the primitive very harmless, or rather laudable, 
discipline of penance and indulgence. 

The revolting arrogance of so strange a speculation, 
when plainly exhibited in its true colours, and when 
no longer decorated or disguised by the specious elo- 
quence of the bishop of Aire, must, I think, shock 
every well regulated mind.* To imagine that the 
divine justice would agree to be satisfied with a 
smaller quantity of expiation than the amount of its 
original requirement, and that each priest enjoyed the 
singular privilege of adjusting the terms of this yet 
more singular bargain between God and his creature, 
is contrary alike to Scripture and to every consistent 
idea which we can form of the divine attributes. Yet 
this theory was but the legitimate offspring of the 
new doctrine of satisfaction as superadded to the old 
penitential discipline of the church. 

I. We are assured, however, by the bishop of Aire, 
that indulgences, viewed (be it observed) under the 
present precise aspect, rest upon the authority of St. 
Paul. 

That great apostle, says he, teaches us positively, 
that to the church belongs the double right of pre- 
scribing and of mitigating satisfactory punishments.! 

For the establishment of this position, the bishop 
refers to two connected passages in the two epistles 
to the Corinthians : but, in neither of those passages, 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xiii. 

f Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 227. 





158 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

can I discover the slightest vestige of any punishments, 
which, in his lordship's sense of the word, can be de- 
nominated satisfactory,^ 

According to the ancient and godly discipline of 
the primitive church, the Corinthians, as St. Paul ex- 
presses himself, had delivered an incestuous member 
of their community unto Satan for the destruction 
of the fleshy that the spirit might he saved in the 
day of the Lord Jesus A This they did under the im- 
mediate sanction of the anxious apostle: and afterward, 
when they were satisfied as to the sincerity of the 
man's contrition, they pardoned him the disgrace 
which he had brought upon the church, and read- 
mitted him to the enjoyment of his former privileges 
as a baptized christian. The circumstance and the 
ground of his readmission were communicated to St. 
Paul; and St. Paul, in reply, informs them, that, as 
they had forgiven the offender, so likewise did he for 
their sakes in the person of Christ.± 

Such was the very simple transaction, from which 
the bishop has learned, that, by the special authority 
of St. Paul, to the church belongs the double right of 
both prescribing and mitigating satisfactory punish- 
ments: punishments, that is to say, according to the 
bishop's avowed doctrine, which should be able to 
make a meritorious expiatory satisfaction, not merely 
to the outraged church viewed as a body-corporate, 
but even to the divine justice itself. Yet, where is 
there a single syllable about any such meritorious 
satisfaction being made to the justice of God, from 
the beginning to the end of the entire narrative? 

II. Bad, however, as indulgences may be when 
viewed under the present most unscriptural aspect, 
their evil admitted of a still higher degree of subli- 
mation. 

The bishop of Aire, himself a most respectable 
ecclesiastic, has no hesitation in pronouncing, with 
or without the consent of his church, that the validity 

* 1 Corinth, v. 1—5. 2 Corinth, ii. 6—10. 
\ 1 Corinth, v. 5. % 2 Corinth, ii. 10. 



INDULGENCES, 159 

of indulgences^ like the validity of absolutions^ 
entirely depends upon the dispositions of the sin- 
ne?\^ This, no doubt, is making the best of the 
matter: but a lamentable story yet remains to be told. 

His lordship treads lightly over ground, which he 
is too good and too sensible a man to deem hallowed. 
What was the crying abomination, which first roused 
the indignant spirit of the great and much-calumniated 
Luther? 'The pope actually drove a gainful pecuniary 
traffic in ecclesiastical indulgences! Instruments of 
this description, by which the labour of making a 
fancied meritorious satisfaction to God by penance 
or by good works was pared down to the dwarfish 
standard that best suited the purse of a wealthy 
offender, were sold in the lump, to a tribe of monas- 
tic vagabonds, by the prelate, who claimed to be 
upon earth the divinely-appointed vicar of Christ. 
These men purchased them of the pope, by as good 
a bargain as they could make; and then, after the 
mode of travelling-pedlars, they disposed of them in 
retail to those who affected such articles of commerce, 
each indulgence of course bearing an adequate pre- 
mium. The madness of superstition could be strained 
no higher: the Reformation burst forth like a torrent; 
and Luther, with theBible in his hand, has merited and 
obtained the eternal hatred of an incorrigible church. 

IIL It is worthy of observation, that the bishop is 
wholly silent as to the imaginary fund, whence the 
inexhaustible stock of papal indulgences is supplied. 
Whether he was himself ashamed of the doctrine of 
supererogation, or whether he thought it imprudent 
to exhibit such a phantasy before the eyes of his 
English correspondent, I shall not pretend to deter- 
mine. From whatever motive, the bishop omits it 
altogether. His lordship^ s defect, however, is abun- 
dantly supplied by the authoritative declaration of 
the reigning pontiff. 

^' We have resolved,^^ says pope Leo in the year 

* Discuss, Amic. vol. ii. p. 229. 



160 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

1824, " by virtue of the authority given to us from 
^heaven, fully to unlock that sacred treasure, com- 
' posed of the merits, sufferings, and virtues, of Christ 
' our Lord, and of his virgin mother, and of all the 
' saints, which the author of human salvation has 
' intrusted to our dispensation — To you, therefore, 
' venerable brethren, patriarchs, primates, arch-bish- 
' ops, bishops, it belongs to explain with perspicuity 
^ the power of indulgences: what is their efficacy in 
' the remission, not only of the canonical penance, 
' but also of the temporal punishment due to the 

* divine justice for past sin; and what succour is 
' afforded out of this heavenly treasure, from the 
' merits of Christ and his saints, to such as have 
'departed real penitents in God's love, yet before 
' they had duly satisfied by fruits worthy of penance 
' for sins of commission and omisvsion, and are now 
' purifying in the fire of purgatory, that an entrance 
' may be opened for them into their eternal country 

* where nothing defiled is admitted/^^ 

From a stock of merits, which the pope claims to 
have at his disposal, indulgences are issued, which 
shall not only remit the canonical penance imposed 
by the church, but which shall also liberate the for- 
tunate possessors from the temporal punishment due 
for past sin to the divine justice, and w4iich shall open 
the doors of purgatory to those suffering spirits who 
departed without having made full satisfaction for 
their iniquities by fruits worthy of penance. 

These then, it seems, are the avowed doctrines 
and practices of the Latin church, not merely during 
the dark ages of barbarous credulity, but in the full 
light of the nineteenth century : these are the high 
behests of that church, which, according to the ex- 
plicit declaration of its visible head to every protestant 
community, is the mother and mistress of all other 
churches, and out of which there is no salvation.* 

* Bull for the observance of the Jubilee, a. d. 1825. 



PURGATORY. 161 



CHAPTER XII. 

The Difficulties of RGinanisrn in respect to Pur- 
gatory. 

For his mode of treating the subject of purgatory, 
I feel it impossible not to honour the bishop of Aire.* 

Instead of vainly labouring to establish the doc- 
trine on some one or two misinterpreted texts of the 
New Testament, he fairly and honestly confesses, 
that we have received no revelation concerning it 
from Jesus Christ. Hence he judiciously wastes not 
his time in adducing passages of Holy Writ which 
are altogether irrelevant. 

"Had it been necessary for us,'^ says he, "to be 
' instructed in such questions, Jesus would doubtless 
' have revealed the knowledge of them. He has not 
' done so. We can, therefore, only form conjectures 
' on the subject more or less probable.^'t 

The doctrine, then, of purgatory is confessedly 
NOT a matter of revelation: whether it be true or 
false, we confessedly cannot ascertain from any- 
thing that Christ has said on the subject. 

This difficulty would have startled an ordinary 
theologian: but, though Christ himself has not re- 
vealed the doctrine, the bishop of Aire can clearly 
demonstrate its truth by an easy and simple inductive 
process. 

I. We must make, argues his lordship, an expiatory 
satisfaction to the divine justice, either in this world 
or in the next. Few men, however, make a full 
expiatory satisfaction in this world : therefore they 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xiii. f Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 242. 
N 2 



162 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

must make it in the next. Now, in the next world, 
they can no longer pursue good works, no longer 
distribute alms, no longer offer any compensatory 
reparations to heaven. One only method of making 
satisfaction remains to them: that, to wit of suffer- 
ing. But, if suffering be the sole method of making 
satisfaction which remains to them hereafter, then, 
indisputably, there must be a place where this suf- 
fering is undergone. Now the place, which has been 
thus proved to exist, is, by the Councils of Florence 
and Trent, conventionally denomin^ited purgatory.^ 

With the name appropriated to this scripturally 
unknown land, I am no way disposed to quarrel : 
for anything that I can see to the contrary, it is very 
appropriate and expressive. The name is unexcep- 
tionable ; but the demonstration is faulty. As De- 
mosthenes says, the war itself will discover the weak 
points of Philip. 

The whole demonstration of the existence of pur- 
gatory, as set forth by the bishop of Aire, rests upon 
the primary position, that we miLst make an expia- 
tory satisfaction to the divine justice^ either in this 
ivorld or in the next. If that position fail, the de- 
monstration fails with it. Now I have already shewn, 
on the fullest evidence, that the doctrine of an expi- 
atory m,eritorious satisfaction^ to be made by man 
to the divine justice^ through the medium either of 
good works or of penal sufferings: I have already 
shewn, that this doctrine is altogether false and 



* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 242 — 244. The bishop attempts to 
perplex the English layman by reminding him of the separate 
abode of departed spirits, during the interval which elapses be- 
tween death and judgment. 

" You believe,'* says he, "the existence of such a place, though 
* its local position is unknown to you. Rest then assured of the 
« existence of purgatory, though we may not be able to define 
*its strict local position." Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 242, 243. Note. 

If any Englisli layman be perplexed by such an argument, he 
must certainly have forgotten, that the point at issue is not the 
LOCALITY, but THE EXISTENCE, of purgatory. 



PURGATORY. 163 

unfounded. Such being the case, the attempted de- 
monstration of the existence of purgatory, which 
avowedly reposes upon it, must needs be wholly 
inconclusive. But the bishop has confessed, that the 
doctrine of purgatory has not been expressly revealed: 
and I have shewn, that he has failed to demonstrate 
its truth by inductive reasoning. Therefore, so far 
as I can discern, we have no proof whatsoever of the 
truth of the doctrine of purgatory. 

IL The case might now^ well seem entirely hopeless: 
but the bishop has yet another argument in reserve. 

"All antiquity/^ says he, '^speaks of an inter- 
^ mediate place, where souls, before they enter into 
* heaven, must be purified from the slightest stains of 
^ iniquity. ^^^ 

1. On a point, confessedly not revealed in Scrip- 
ture and incapable of proof by inductive reasonings 
I should not be disposed very greatly to defer to 
antiquity, even if all antiquity were in one story, 
which the bishop declares to be the case. His lord- 
ship's own references, however, tacitly correct the 
largeness of his phraseology. 

Cyprian, who flourished about the middle of the 
third century^ chronologically ushers in the period 
which the bishop denominates all antiquity: and 
this very Cyprian, comparatively late as we must 
pronounce his testimony, is not for him, but aguinst 
him. 

This father mentions, as a practice of the Christians 
in the third century, that, as often as they comme- 
morated the passions of the martyrs on the anniversa- 
ries of their martyrdoms, they always ofiered up 
sacrifices for them: and he also speaks with praise of 
an episcopal arrangement, by which it was ordained, 
that, in the case of persons under certain specified 
circumstances, no sacrifice should be celebrated for 
their repose.t 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 243. Note. 

f Cyprian. Epist. xxxix. p. 77. Epist. i. p. 3. 



164 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

Such is clearly the language of Cyprian; and, by 
such language, the bishop has no less clearly been 
deceived. 

The sacrifices, offered up for the martyrs and for 
other pious members of the church on certain anni- 
versary days, were not, as the bishop imagines, 
prayers for the liberation of their souls from pur- 
gatory: but they were sacrifices of praise and 
thanhs giving to Mmighty God^ like those of more 
than one of our canonical Jinglican prayers^ on 
the ground that these pious men had now departed 
out of this life in the faith and hope of Christ,"^ 

It is possible, that the bishop may urge against me 
a passage in the Epistle to Antonianus, where the 
holy father speaks of persons being long purified in 
fire for their sins, ere they are admitted into the bliss 
of heaven. t 

I am fully aware of the existence of that passage: 
but I deem it no proof, that Cyprian held the modern 
Latin doctrine of purgatory. Had the bishop read 
the note of Rigaud on the place, he must at least have 
acknowledged, that, in the abstract, Cyprian's language 
is ambiguous. To my own apprehension, the learned 
commentator has fully established, that Cyprian speaks 
only of the allegorical fire of penitential austerities 
through which the lapsed were required to pass by 
the early discipline of the church. Not only does 
the context of the passage demonstrate Rigaud to be 
in the right; but another passage also, not noticed by 
him, clearly evinces the propriety of his interpreta- 
tion. 

^' When once we have departed hence,'^ says Cy- 

* See the prayers in the communion service, the burial service, 
and the fifty-fifth canon: and compare Heb. xiii. 15. 

f Cyprian. Epist. Iv. p. 109. I am unable to say, whether the 
bishop means to refer to this passage or not: for he and I use two 
different editions of Cyprian. His only reference is to Epist. ii. 
But, in this Epistle, as it stands in the Oxford edition of 1682, 
which is the edition used by myself, there is no mention made 
either of purgatory or of prayers for the dead. 



PURGATORY. 165 

prian, ^^ there is no longer any place for repentance, 
' no longer any effectiveness of satisfaction. Here, 
^ life is either lost or held: here, we may provide for 
' our eternal salvation by the worship of God and the 
' fruitfulness of faith. Let not any one, then, be 
' retarded, either by sins or by length of years, from 
' attaining to salvation. To a person, while he 
' remains in this world, repentance is never too late. 
' Those, who seek after and understand the truth, may 
' always have an easy access to the indulgence of God. 
' Even to the very end of your life, pray for your 
^sins: and, by confession and faith, implore the one 
' only true Deity. To him, who confesses, pardon is 
^freely granted: to him, w^ho believes, a salutary in- 
' dulgence is granted from the divine pity: and, imme- 

' DIATELY AFTER DEATH, HE PASSES TO A BLESSED 
' IMMORTALITY.'^^ 

2. In the large phraseology of the bishop of Aire, 
ALL antiquity commences with Cyprian, who flou- 
rished about the middle of the third century. 

Yet, I pray, was Cyprian the ve^y earliest of the 
fathers? Why did not his lordship cite, in favour of 
the doctrine which he advocates, Clement of Rome, 
and Polycarp, and Ignatius, and Justin, and Irenseus, 
and Athenagoras, and the old anonymous winters, 
whose works are usually printed along with those of 
Justin? Why were not these much more ancient 
fathers adduced, as unanimously vouching for the doc- 
trine of purgatory? If we attend to their testimony, 
w^e shall discover the reason of the bishop's prudent 
preterition. 

On the supposition, then, that all antiquity 
teaches the doctrine of purgatory^ how came Cle- 
ment to be totally silent respecting it, even when ex- 
pressly treating of death and the resurrection?! How 
happened he so entirely to forget it, as to declare, that 

* Cyprian, ad Demetrian. p. 196. See also Epist. xii. p. 27, 28. 
t Clem. Epist. ad Corinth, i. § 23—27. 



166 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

when once we shall have departed this life, there is 
no room for ics in another^ either to C07ifess or to 
repent,^ 

Why did Polycarp avowedly discuss the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, and yet wholly pretermit the doc- 
trine of purgatory?! 

Why did Ignatius assert, that two states only in the 
future world, a state of death and a state of life, 2X^ 
set before us ; so that every one, who departs, shall 
depart to his own proper place: and why did he not 
set forth that yet additional MzW state, which, under 
the name oi purgatory, makes so conspicuous a figure 
in the theology of the Latin church?]: 

Why did Irenseus, without presuming to say a 
wot-d about purgatory, content himself with simply 
intimating, that the souls of the dead shall depart 
into an i7ivisible place prepared of God for them, 
where they shall abide in constant expectation of 
the resurrection and reunion of the body?^ 

Why did the old writer, in the works of Justin 
Martyr, pursue a train of reasoning, on the pardon of 
the lapsed under the dispensation of grace, which is 
wholly incompatible with a belief in the doctrine of 
purgatory? II 

Why did Athenagoras professedly write an entire 
treatise on the resurrection of the dead ; and yet, not- 
withstanding the nature of his subject, leave the state 
of purgatory wholly unnoticed and unmentioned?ir 

But I forbear. The English laity will ere now, I 
trust, be sufficiently convinced, that all antiquity 
does not speak of an intermediate place, where souls, 
before they enter into heaven, must be cleansed from 
their smallest pollutions in the fire of purgatory. 

* Ibid. ii. § 8. f Polycarp. Epist. ad Philip. § il. vii. 

t Ignat. Epist. ad Magnes. § v. 
§ Iren. adv. H^r. lib. v. c. 26. § 2, 3. 

11 Quxst. et Respons. ad Orthod. in Oper. Justin, quesest. xcvii. 
p. 350, 351. 

t Athenag. de Resurr. Mort. in Oper. p. 143 — 219. 



PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 167 



CHAPTER XIII. 

The Difficulties of Bomanism in respect to prayers 
for the Bead. 

Respecting the existence of purgatory, by the 
bishop of Aire's very candid acknowledgment, Holy 
Scripture is perfectly silent. Equally silent also is it 
respecting the obligation or the benefit of prayers for 
the dead offered up by the living. Neither the one 
nor the other does it mention : to neither the one 
nor the other does it even make so much as the very 
slightest allusion. Concerning hoth^ on the supposi- 
tion of the truth of the one and the duty of the other^ 
it maintains a reserve most singularly unnaccount- 
able."^ 

It is true indeed, that, from the few and indistinct 
notices of a future state which occur in the Hebrew 
Scriptures, we might not have much reason to be sur- 
prised at their silence on the present topics: but, 
when we recollect that it was a special office of Christ 
to illuminate life and iminortality through the 
Gosjjelj^ it is utterly incredible, that the light-giving 
Saviour should have vouchsafed us no sort of revela- 
tion concerning purgatory and prayers for the dead, 
had the former really existed, and had the latter been 
a pious and profitable duty. 

On the awful truths of the next world, our Lord 
is copious and distinct, alarming and consolatory. 
We have the whole fearful machinery of the last 
day placed, as it were, visibly before our very eyes: 
the sheep on the right hand of the Judge ; the goats 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xiii. f 2 Tim. i. 10. 



168 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

on the left hand. We hear, as it were with our very- 
ears, the irreversible doom of weal or woe. The 
doors of the adytum are thrown open : the mystery, 
hidden or but dimly perceived through a long succes- 
sion of ages, is unreservedly declared to the whole 
universe. Yet, respecting purgatory and prayers for 
the dead, the great and all-knowing hierophant is 
profoundly silent. 

I. In place of any proof, either from the Hebrew 
Scriptures, or from the Scriptures of the New" Testa- 
ment, that prayers for the dead are the duty of 
the livings the bishop produces a meagre and scanty 
attestation from the apocryphal history of the Macca- 
bees, which his church has taken upon herself to pro- 
nounce canonical. 

" If Judas had not hoped, '^ says the author of that 
history, " that they who were slain should have 
^ risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray 
'for the dead.''* 

The poverty of the bishop I blame not. He has 
done what he could: and mortal man can do no more. 
Proof from the genuine Scriptures he was unable to 
bring: and we cannot reasonably censure him for not 
accomplishing an impossibility; we cannot equitably 
impeach him for not producing a nonentity. Christ, 
it is true, is silent on the subject: but what Christ has 
not taught, we may learn from Judas Maccabeus. 

This is no time for discussing the canon of Holy 
Scripture: nor shall I enter upon a topic, which has 
already been handled most sufficiently by persons far 
more competent than myself. Yet, since the bishop 
has thought it good to inform the English laic, that 
the reform^ers of the sixteenth century removed the 
Maccabssan history from the canon, purely to rid 
themselves of the evidence which it bears to mor- 
tuary supplications, and thence implicatively to the 
doctrine of purgatory :t it may not be improper to 

• 2 Mace. xii. 44. f Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 246. 



PRATERS FOR THE DEAD. 169 

remind his lordship of the language employed by an 
author, with whom he is intimately acquainted, and 
who certainly had no concern in the evil deeds of the 
sixteenth age. 

^' Have nothing in common with the Apocrypha," 
said Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, to the 
Competentes, who were preparing themselves for 
baptism: " Have nothing in common with the Apo- 
^ crypha, but study those books which we read in 
^ the church. The apostles and the ancient bishops, 
^ who delivered those books to us, were much wiser 

* than you. As children, therefore, of the church, set 
^ not upon her authorized documents the adulterat- 

* ing seal of a false impression."* 

The canon of the Old Testament, as propounded 
by Cyril to his pupils, differs not from the canon re- 
ceived by the innovators of the sixteenth century, 
save that it inserts the book of Baruch; which book, 
as it exists not in the Hebrew, the Jews, who might 
be supposed to have some slight acquaintance with 
their own canon, have nev^r recognised. Subsequent 
more careful examination led Augustine, and the 
Greek church, and the Councils of Carthage and 
Laodicea, to reject from the canon this book, which 
CyriPs list includes in it: the fathers of the Council 
of Trent best know the grounds on which they rein- 
stated that composition. As for the Maccabsean his- 
tory, which has rendered such essential service to 
the bishop of Aire, it is among those proscribed apo- 
cryphal books, which the archbishop of Jerusalem 
exhorts the illuminated most diligently to renounce, 
on the ground that it was not delivered to the church 
by the apostles and the ancient bishops. 

II. His lordship, however, meets us with a nega- 
tive, as well as with a positive argument. 

If Christ did not teach us the duty of praying for 
the dead by his wordsy he assuredly taught it no less 
forcibly by his silence. 

* Cyril. Catech. iv. p. 37. 



170 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

This is not so great a paradox, as, at first sight, it 
might well be deemed: and the bishop has contrived 
to make out a very plausible case from very unpro- 
mising materials. 

'^The language of Judas Maccabeus, or of his his- 
' torian,'^ argues the bishop, " proves indisputably that 
' the practice of praying for the dead prevailed among 
' the Jews. Now Christ never censures this practice; 
^ THEREFORE he tacitly sanctions it.^'* 

We must confess, I fear, that Christ never censured 
the practice in so many precise words; yet his apostle 
John received a communication, which can scarcely 
be reconciled with the ordinance of praying for the 
dead, that their souls might be liberated from the fire 
of purgatory. 

/ heard a voice from heaven^ saying unto me: 

Write; blessed are the dead which die in the Lord 

from henceforth. Yea, saith the spirit, that they 

m,ay rest from their labours; and their works do 

follow theni^ 

The dead in the Lord, then, are .blessed: and, 
whensoever they depart hence they rest from their 
labours. Now, if it were necessary for them to 
enter into purgatory, ere they were admitted into a 
state of beatitude; which according to the bishop, 
ALL must do, since the fire of purgatory must cleanse 
us even from our slightest stains :J they would not^ 
immediately after death, rest from their labours ; for 
his lordship himself being judge, purgatory does not 
hold forth to its inmates the accommodation of a bed 
of roses. Therefore, by an inevitable consequence 
from the plain words of Holy Writ, they enter not 
into a purgatory, from which they may be prema- 
turely liberated by the suffrages of the living. 

III. What the bishop cannot prove from Scripture 
either positively or negatively, he hopes to prove from 
the respectable human authority of the old fathers. 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 248. f Rev. xlv. 13. 

4: Doivent etre purifiees de leurs moindres souillures. Discuss. 
Amic. vol. ii. p. 243. Note. 



PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 171 

1. Among these, the most ancient, that he produces, 
is Tertullian ; who flourished at the end of the second, 
and at the beginning of the third, century: for his 
lordship, doubtless because he found in them nothing 
to his purpose, carefully pretermits the earliest eccle- 
siastical writers. 

From the bishop's small success w^ith Cyprian, 
whom Tertullian chronologically preceded, we shall 
not anticipate much benefit to his cause through the 
agency of Tertullian.* 

(1.) ^^On a certain annual day/' says that father, 
'^ \\Q make oblations for the dead and for nativities.^'t 

By the w^ord nativities^ as employed by Tertul- 
lian, we are to understand, according to the phraseo- 
logy of the primitive church, not the literal birthdays 
of the living, but the allegorical birthdays of the 
dead; the days, that is to say, on which the departed 
saints were born out of this present evil world into a 
new and better state of existence. 

Now the same oblations, we see, were made both 
for the dead themselves^ and for these their allegori- 
cal nativities. Hence, plainly, the oblations must 
have been made for each under the very same aspect, 
and under the influence of the very same idea. But, 
for the allegorical nativities of the departed saints, it 
is evident, that the figurative sacrifice oi prayer could 
not have been made: because, even were we so 
inclined, we cannot pray for the death of those who 
are already dead. The oblations, therefore, men- 
tioned by Tertullian, must have been oblations, not of 
prayer^ but of thanksgiving. 

Such being the case, his oblations for the dead^ 
being assuredly of the same nature as his oblations 
for the allegorical nativities of the rfea^, are not, as 
the bishop imagines, jc^rayer^ for the dead, whereby 
they may be extricated from the fire of purgatory : 
but, on the contrary, they are thanksgivings for the 

* See above. Book i. chap. 12. § IL 1. 
f Tertull. de Coron. Mil. ^ iii. p. 449. 



173 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

dead, analogous to those mentioned by Cyprian ; in 
Other words, they are thanksgivings to Almighty 
God for having taken unto himself the souls of the 
departed brethren. 

This, I think, is plainly the meaning of the sacrifices 
and oblations for the dead, mentioned by Cyprian and 
Tertullian. They were strictly eucharistic and com- 
memorative: eucharistic for the pious dead in general; 
commemorative, of the martyrs in particular, whose 
names were on these occasions publicly recited."^ 

(2.) But, though such be clearly enough the 
meaning of the oblations noticed by Tertullian, we 
must not dissemble, that, under one particular aspect, 
ew^n prayers for the dead are certainly, in his indi- 
vidual capacity, sanctioned by that father. 

At the conclusion of his treatise on the soul, he 
advocates a notion, that the abode of a departed spirit 
in the prison of the intermediate state might be pro- 
longed, and that its final resurrection might be delay- 
ed, on account of the smaller sins which it had com- 
mitted in the flesh. t This notion, having been once 
adopted by the speculative African, forthwith pro- 
duced the additional idea, that prayers might be 
advantageously offered up by the living, both for the 
comfort of a soul in hades, and for its participation of 



* See Cyprian. Eplst. xii. p. 27, 28. The language of Justin 
Martyr sufficiently explains the true nature of the oblations and 
sacrifices mentioned by Tertullian and Cyprian. Writing about 
the middle of the second century, he assures us, that christians, in 
their form of worship, recognise no oblations and sacrifices save 
the purely spiritual oblations and sacrifices of prayer and thanks- 
giving. Apol. i. vulg. ii. p. 46. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 270. Now, 
that the ancient oblations for the dead were not prayers^ I have 
fully shewn. Therefore they must have been thanksgivings. I 
have cited Justin lest any one should contend, that the oblations 
for the deadme2t.n what the Latins call the sacrifice of the mass, in 
which the priest is said to offer Christ both for the quick and for 
the dead. The testimony of this early father, to the specific nature 
of the ancient Christian oblations and sacrifices, is utterly fatal to 
any such speculation. 

t Tertull. de Anim. Oper. p. 689. 



PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. 173 

the first resurrection without experiencing a procras- 
tination to the second resurrection.* 

Prayers, then, for the dead, under such an aspect, 
he doubtless recommends: but these prayers, even to 
say nothing of their resting on the mere authority of 
a fanciful individual, bear not the slightest resem- 
blance to those prayers, by the instrumentality of 
which, according to the theory of the Latin church, 
the souls of the defunct are liberated from purgatory. 

2. With Tertullian the bishop adduces Cyprian and 
Chrysostom and Augustine, as being all favourable 
to the doctrine of purgatory and to the practice of 
praying for the dead. 

Cyprian I have already disposed of.t As for Chry- 
sostom and Augustine, who flourished at the latter 
end of the fourth and at the beginning of the fifth 
century, I freely allow (and the bishop may make 
the most of my concession) that, in their time, 
prayers for the dead and the notion of a purgatory 
(though by no means identical with the purgatory of 
the modern Latins) had crept into the church, now 
rapidly declining into unscriptural superstition. f 

* Tertull. de Monogam. § ix. Oper. p. 578. 

f See above, Book I. chap. 12. § II. 1. 

^ For the sentiments of Chrysostom himself, the bishop refers 
to his sixty-ninth Homily to the people of Antioch: and he ex- 
hibits him as there saying, that The apostles vrdh good reason en- 
joined the commemoration of the dead, whenever the mysteries are 
celebrated; for they well knew, that the dead thence derived both utility 
and profit. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 251. 

His lordship and myself may probably have used different 
editions of Chrysostom, in which his Homilies are differently ar- 
ranged: but certainly, in the edition nowbefore me, (Lutet. Paris. 
1609), no such passage occurs in the sixty-ninth Homily, though 
its opening treats of the commemoration of the martyrs. 

Where the apostles enjoin the commemoration of the dead at 
the celebration of the Lord's Supper, on the ground that the 
dead are benefitted by such a practice, I am constrained to pro- 
fess myself altogether ignorant. 
P 2 



174 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

An Historical Sketch of the Rise of Frayers for 
the Dead and of the Doctrine of Purgatory. 

To trace the rise of such speculations, as the doc- 
trine of purgatory and the duty of praying for the 
dead, is a matter of mere curiosity; nor shall I 
attempt any thing beyond a bare sketch. The whole 
is gratuitous and altogether unnecessary to my argu- 
ment : it may be viewed, as strictly a work of liberal 
supererogation. 

I. Prayers for the dead, that they might be com- 
forted in the separate abode of departed spirits, and 
that without any penal delay they might be made 
partakers of the first resurrection, were recommended 
by Tertullian at the latter end of the second century.^ 

This crude phantasy, then (so far as I know) first 
started by an imaginative individual, though in itself 
wholly unconnected with the doctrine of a purgatory, 
was not suffered to rest under the form in which it 
had been originally exhibited: and the hint of the 
African father was at length expanded into a theory, 
which in his time could have been but little anticipated. 

II. Of prayers for the dead, on a principle which 
at least approximates to the pur gat or ian principle, 
the earliest distinct traces, which have come within 
the compass of my own reading, occur in the mysta- 
gogical lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem.! 

* TertuU. de Anim. Oper. p. 689. Tertull. de Monogam. § 
ix. Oper. p. 578. 

I There is a prayer for the dead in the Apostolic Constitutions: 
but, in this prayer, the existence of any purgatory is neither men- 
tioned nor even supposed. The prayer merely supphcates, that 
God would pardon all the sins of the dead and would forthwith 
receive them into glory. Constit. Apos. lib. viii. c. 41. The 
prayer is followed by some directions respecting the commemora- 
tion of the dead. Ibid. c. 42. 

Prayers for the dead are also mentioned by Epiphanius of Sala- 



DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. 175 

This author, it is true, does not precisely mention 
purgatory; neither does he say any thing as to a fire, 
which is appointed to purify men from their sins, and 
from which they may be liberated sooner than they 
otherwise would have been by the suffrages of the 
living: but, in his language, a place of penal though 
not of eternal separation from God, whence departed 
spirits might be extricated by the prayers of surviv- 
ing friends, is certainly implied and understood. 
The souls of the dead, he thinks, are greatly benefited 
by the prayers of the living, offered up during the 
celebration of the Eucharist: and he illustrates the 
condition of such souls, by the supposed case of a king, 
who had banished certain of his rebellious subjects 
from his presence, but who had afterward been per- 
suaded at the instance of their friends and relations to 
remit their punishment. 

That both the speculation and the practice, how^- 
ever, were then in their infancy, the language of 
Cyril clearly demonstrates : for he himself mentions 
the opposition which was made to them, not by ^ few 
merely, but by many.* 

III. Such was the state of matters in the time of 
Cyril : and it is evident, I think, that the earliest cor- 

mis, who flourished contemporaneously with Cyril of Jerusalem: 
but they are not connected with any thing which bears the least 
resemblance to a purgato^3^ Epiphanius expresses himself with 
much indignation against the heretic Aerius; who, objecting to 
the custom of reciting the names of the dead in the office of the 
Eucharist, inquires, how the dead can be benefited by the 
prayers of the living; and remarks, that the adoption of such a 
practice can only tend to promote immorality, because a wealthy 
offender may always take care to purchase the venal suffrages of 
a survivor. Yet, when he himself in reply comes to state his own 
views of the subject, he is totally silent as to the existence of 
any purgatory: and, instead of intimating that the prayers of the 
living are effectual to liberate the souls of the dead from a place 
of this description, he contents himself with comparing prayers 
for the dead to prayers put up on behalf of a friend when engaged 
in taking along journey. In fact, so far from intimating that the 
subjects of these prayers are in purgatory, he expressly speaks of 
them as existing and living with the Lord. Epiph. adv. Hxr. 
lib. iii. haer. 75. 

* Cyril. Catech. Mystag. v. p. 241. 



176 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

ruption, engrafted upon the original fanciful speculation 
of TertulliaUjWas the transmutation oi the old thanks- 
giving for the pious dead into prayers fo?' the souls 
of the dead in general; or rather, to express myself 
somewhat more accurately, prayers for the souls of 
the dead in general were superadded to the old 
thanksgivings for the happy departure of the pious 
dead. But, when we reach the days of Augustine, 
we find incontrovertible proof, that both prayers for 
the dead and the notion of a purgatory had become 
familiar to a now unhappily degenerating church. 

1. There is a very odd sort of hesitation in Augus- 
tine respecting the whole matter, w^hich clearly 
enough indicates, that in his days the superstition had 
not been perfectly digested, though it gradually 
acquired strength and consistency. 

(1.) In a work, which professedly treats of the 
care that ought to be taken for the dead, that great 
father refers to the well-known passage of the Mac- 
cabsean history, where prayers and sacrifices for the 
souls of the defunct are mentioned and vindicated :^ 
but, unable to produce any legitimate sanction of the 
practice from canonical Scripture, he finally winds 
up the whole disputation with the prudent remark, 
that many things may profit us if we know them^ 
but that our ignorance of them can do us no very 
serious mischief. 

On this secure conclusion is built the doctrine, that 
it is best to pray for the souls of all the regenerate 
collectively ; lest any departed person, who might 
be benefited by our orisons, should unfortunately be 
omitted : and the reason assigned is, thatzY is far 
more eligible^ that souls, who will be neither the 
better nor the worse for our prayers, should have 
too m^uch ; than that souls, who\m.ay really be bene- 
fited by them, should have too littleA 

(2.) Thus speaks Augustine, in his treatise on the 

* 2 Mace. xii. 43—45. 

f August, de Cur, pro. Mort gerend. c. i. xvii. Oper. vol. iv. p. 
255, 261. 



DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. 177 

care of the dead : but, in one of his sermons^ we find 
him waxing somewhat bolder. 

'^ Beyond all doubt/^ says he, " the dead are assist- 
^ ed by the prayers of holy church, and by the salutary 
' sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for the 
' repose of their souls ; so that the Lord may deal 
^ more mercifully with them than their sins deserve : 
' for this has been handed down by the fathers, and 
^ is observed by the whole church. Such exercises 
' most assuredly profit the dead : but then those persons 
' only are benefited, who have so lived before death, 
^ that these things may be useful to them after death.'^^ 

(3.) So again, in his treatise on the eight ques- 
tions of Dulcitius, he half inclines to think, that 
the fire, which St. Paul mentions as burning the de- 
fective works of a christian, though the christian 
himself is saved as by fire, may perhaps be a purga- 
tory: through the fire of which all must pass alike, 
whether they have built upon the true foundation gold 
and silver and precious stones, or whether they have 
only accumulated upon it wood and hay and stubble.f 

That some such thing as this occurs after the pre-- 
sent life^ he observes, is far from being incredihle.% 

(4.) But, when he comes to treat directly oi pur- 
gatory itself though still relying for his scriptural 
proof upon the self-same passage of St. Paul, he 
speaks with almost as much positiveness, as if the 
silence of Christ had been subsequently remedied by 
a special revelation from heaven to himself. 

"By that transitory fire,^' he remarks, '^ concern- 
' ing which the apostle says, He himself shall be saved 
^ yet so as through fire; not deadly, but only minute, 
^ sins are purged. — Whoever is conscious that any 
' deadly sin rules within him, that person, unless he 
' shall have worthily reformed himself, and (if space 
' be aflforded him) shall have done penance for a long 
^ time, and shall have been bountiful in alms-giving, 

* August. Serm. de Verb. Apost. xxxli. Oper. vol. x. p. 138. 

1 1 Corinth, iii. 10—15. 

% August, de Oct. Dulcit. Quaest. Oper. vol. iv. p. 250. 



178 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

^ and shall have abstained from his sins: that person 

* cannot be purged in the transitory fire concerning 

* which the apostle speaks; but the eternal fire will 
' torment him without any remedy. As for minute 

* sins, though they cannot slay the soul, yet they so 
' deform it by a sort of leprosy, that, with difficulty, 
^ or at least with great confusion, they suffer it to 
' receive the embrace of the heavenly bridegroom. 

* Let such sins then be redeemed by continual prayer, 

* and by frequent fasting, and by larger alms, and 
^ above all by the forgiveness of our enemies; lest, 

* when accumulated, they should sink the soul into 
' perdition. But, whatever of those sins shall not 
^ have been thus redeemed, it must be purged in the 
^lire mentioned by the apostle. — On this principle, 
' if we thank God for depriving us of our friends or 

* of our substance, confessing with true humility that 
'we suffer less than we deserve; our sins will be 
^ purged in this present world, so that in the future 

* world that purgatorial fire shall find either nothing, 
' or certainly but little, to burn away. But, if we 
'neither give thanks unto God in tribulation, nor 

* buy off our sins by good works; we must, under 
' such circumstances, remain in the fire of purgatory 
'just so long a time, as it may require to burn away 
' our smaller sins, like wood and hay and stubble.^^^ 

2. Thus, after much vacillation, Augustine seems 
finally to have adopted, so far as principle is con- 
cerned, the identical dogma of a future purgatory 
which is now held by the church of Rome. Yet, 
though in principle the purgatory of Augustine is 
the same as the purgatory of the Latins, in its m^range- 
ment it differs very widely and essentially. 

According to the theory of the Roman church, the 
soul, iinmediately after its separation from the body, 
passes into a present purgatory: yet the duration and 
intensity of its sufferings in that place of torment may 
be abbreviated and relaxed by the prayers of the living. 

But, according to the theory, of Augustine, the 

* August, de Igne Purgat, Serm, iv. Oper. vol. x. p. 382. 



DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. 179 

purgatorial fire, through which the soul must pass, is 
the fire which consumes the world at the day of 
judgment: whence it would follow, that the prayers 
for the dead, recommended by that father, are not 
prayers by which the soul may be liberated from a 
present purgatory ; but^thatthey are prayers, which 
may avail to give the soul a better passage through 
the yet future transitory fire at the general con- 
summation,'^ 

The difference is striking: and, when united both 
with the previous vacillation of Augustine and with 
the total silence of the fathers of the three first cen- 
turies, it clearly shews, that the doctrine of purgatory, 
as now held by the church of Rome, was completed 
only by slow degrees, and in the lapse of a consider- 
able period. 

3. Augustine, we see, rests his proof of a purgatory 
upon a text of Holy Writ, which the bishop of Aire 
has had the good sense and prudence not to adduce.! 

The doctrine being a novelty, the exposition of 
the text is obviously a novelty also. Though Augus- 
tine could at length, after much hesitation, extract 
from it the tenet of a purgatory, his chronological 
predecessors, Tertullian and Origen, in the second 
and third centuries, were not quicksighted enough 
to discover in it any such extraordinary dogma.f 
Their more ancient expositions of the text differ en- 
tirely from the more recent gloss of Augustine. 

* August. Enarr. in Psalm, ciii. cone. 3. Oper. vol. vlii. p. 430. 
August, de Civit. Dei. lib. xx. c. 26. Oper. vol. v. p. 253. It is 
not improbable, that Augustine may have borrowed this notion 
from a conjectural hint, which had been previously thrown out by 
Origen. See Orig. adv. Cels. lib. iv. p. 168, 169. lib. v. p. 240, 
241. lib. vi. p. 292, 293. The idea itself seems to have been ul- 
timately taken from those successive purgatorial catastrophes of 
the worldy whether by a deluge of water or by a deluge of fire, 
which constitute so conspicuous a feature in many of the ancient 
systems of theological philosophy, both oriental and occidental. 
See Orig. adv. Cels. lib. iv. p. 173. lib. v. p. 244, 245. 

t 1 Corinth, iii. 10—15. 

i: See TertuU. adv. Marcion. lib. v. § 11. p. 304. Griff, adv. Cels. 
lib.iv. p. 168, 169. 



180 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 



CHAPTER XV. 

The Difficulties of Romanism in respect to the In- 
vocation of the Saints. 

We are informed by the bishop of Aire, that the 
invocation of the saints, as recommended and prac- 
tised in the Latin church, is nothing more than a 
simple request of their intercessory prayers on our 
behalf ^ 

Planting himself upon this ground, he certainly 
exposes, with much felicity, the weakness of some 
very common, though very inefficient, protestant 
objections. 

If it be lawful, argues the bishop, to solicit the 
prayers of our living friends, how can it be unlawful 
to solicit the prayers of our dead friends ? If the in- 
tercessory prayers of our living friends trench not 
upon the high speciality of Christ's prevailing media- 
tion; why should the intercessory prayers of our 
dead friends be inconsistently charged with the 
impiety of any such encroachment? If a knowledge 
of distant transactions, and even a power of reading 
the human heart, might be communicated to Elisha 
and Peter upon earth ;t why may not the same power, 
to any extent which God shall deem expedient, be 
communicated to the saints in heaven ? To say, that 
the omniscience of God is invaded by the communi- 
cation of this knowledge, and that the circumstance 
of its communication must thence be physically im- 
possible, is most nugatory and most inconclusive. 
For, if to a saint in heaven w^ere communicated a 
knowledge so large that he could hear at once the 
invocation of all living men in all parts of the world: 
still that knowledge would be immeasurably distant 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xiv. f 2 Kings v. 26. vi. 12. Acts v. 3. 



INVOCATION or THE SAINTS. 181 

from the omniscience of God. No reasonable man, 
therefore, can venture to say in the abstract, that the 
communication of such knowledge is a virtual impos- 
sibility.^ 

Thus argues the bishop of Aire: but, as the strict 
accuracy of his premises may well be doubted, so 
the true principle of objection, even to that miti- 
gated invocation of the saints which he has under- 
taken to defend, he has never once mentioned. 

I. By the voice of revelation itself, we are express- 
ly authorized to solicit the intercessory prayers of 
our living friends: but Scripture no where enjoins or 
even sanctions the practice of soliciting the interces- 
sory prayers of our dead friends. 

Such being the case, when we ask the prayers of 
our living friends, we act in strict conformity with 
God's word, and we are therefore assured that we 
are acting properly: but, when we ask the prayers 
of our dead friends, we gratuitously turn aside from 
the royal highway, and we know not into what devi- 
ous paths we may ultimately be permitted to wander. 

1. Were we unable to give any satisfactory rea- 
son for the singular and alarming difference which I 
have pointed out; still, even in that case, it would 
be quite sufficient to say, that such a difference 
actually subsists. 

God, in his infinite wisdom, has thought fit to put 
a marked difference between our soliciting the in- 
tercessory prayers of the livings and our soliciting 
the intercessory prayers of the dead. The former 
action he has expressly allowed: the latter action he 
has not expressly allowed. Respecting the one, he 
speaks permissively; respecting the other, he is 
totally silent. Such a difference, we may be sure, 
he would not have placed between two apparently 
homogeneous actions without some very good and 
sufficient reason. Here, then, it is our duty and our 
wisdom to rest; certain that, in all his matters, God 
never acts lightly and fortuitously. 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 265—275, 

Q 



182 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

2. But, while the mere existence of the difference 
would be an amply-sufficient landmark for our con- 
duct; still, though with the deep humility befitting 
worms of the earth, we may not unfrequently discern 
the very principle of the divine proceedings. Such, I 
apprehend, is the case in regard to the present topic. 

Why did God authorize us to solicit the prayers of 
the living, and yet did not authorize us to solicit the 
prayers of the dead. 

The reason seems to have been this: When we 
solicit the intercessory prayers of our living friends, 
we are in no danger of lapsing into any undue or 
superstitious veneration of them : but, when we soli- 
cit the intercessory prayers of the departed saints, 
we are in very considerable danger of falling into 
habits altogether irreconcilable with the undivided 
allegiance which we owe to the Creator. 

(1.) This danger is by no means chimerical. Ex- 
perience of the past, and prophetic anticipation of the 
future, might alike have taught the waning church its 
dire reality. 

Of the Gentiles, the entire polytheism consisted in 
the worship of the demon-gods, most curiously asso- 
ciated with sabianism and materialism: and these 
demon-gods, as we are explicitly assured by the best- 
informed pagans, were no other than the departed 
souls of canonized mortals.* 

Such was the worship, into which the apostate 
Israelites declined, when they joined themselves unto 
Baal-peor, and ate the offerings of the dead.t It was 
not that they ever absolutely renounced the adoration 
of Jehovah : but, apparently deeming him far above 
out of their sight, while they distantly viewed him 
with a decent, ineffective reverence, they addicted 
themselves to the more palpable funereal orgies of 
Thammuz, or Adonis, or Baal, or Osiris. 

Such also is the worship, into which, according to 
the sure word of prophetic revelation, certain mem- 
bers of the church catholic would lapse in the latter 
• See my Origin of Pagan Idol. Book I. chap. i. f Psalm cvi. 28 



INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 183 

times. The Spirit^ says St. Paul, speaketh expressly j 
that in the latter times some shall apostatize from 
the faith, giviiig heed to seducing spirits and doc- 
trines concerning demon-gods,^ 

(2.) Possibly the bishop of Aire may say, that this 
exposition of the apostle's prophecy is a mere pro- 
testant gloss, excogitated for the evident purpose of 
imprinting a stigma upon the Latins. 

Should the bishop so say, he would err. I speak 
not at present of the conduct of the Latins, whether 
it be justifiable or unjustifiable : I put the church of 
Rome entirely out of the question: I am concerned 
only with the abstract interpretation of the prophecy: 
I meddle not with its particular application. 

Now the abstract interpretation of the prophecy, as 
given above, was not devised by some protestant ex- 
positor, for the mere purpose of serving a turn in 
controversy. This identical abstract interpretation 
of the prophecy was, in truth, the abstract interpreta- 
tion received by the early church, certainly twelve 
centuries, probably more than twelve centuries, 
before the era of the Reformation. The primitive 
believers, as we learn from Epiphanius, understood 
St. Paul to have foretold an apostasy in the christian 
church to the worship of canonized mortals, which 
should be strictly analogous to the apostasy in the 
ancient Hebrew church to the worship of Baalim or 
departed hero-gods. t 

* 1 Tim. iv. 1. 

f The passage, whence I collect that such was the interpreta- 
tion of the prophecy adopted in the early church, is too remark- 
able to be omitted. 

*' Some persons,'* says Epiphanius of Salamis, who flourished in 
the earlier half of the fourth century, '^are mad enough to honour 
' Virgin as a sort of goddess. Certain women have transplanted 

* this vanity from Thrace into Arabia. For they sacrifice a bread- 

* cake in honour of the Virgin: and, in her name, they blasphe- 

* mously celebrate sacred mysteries. But the whole matter is a 

* tissue of impiety, abhorrent from the teaching of the Holy Spirit: 

* so that we may well call it a diabolical business and a manifest 
^ doctrine of the spirit of impurity. In them is fulfilled this pro- 
*phecy of St. Paul: Certain persons shall apostatize from the 

* faith, attending to fables and doctrines concerning demon-gods. 



184 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

(3.) On the whole, when we consider the strong 
tendency in human nature to lapse into a supersti- 
tious veneration of the illustrious dead, and when we 
further recollect ihe actual existence of a prophecy 
that certain branches of the catholic church would 
apostatize into this identical superstitious vene- 
ration; we shall find no great difficulty in develop- 
ing the principle, on which God has allowed us 
to request the prayers of our living friends, while he 
has given us no authority to implore the prayers of 
the departed saints. 

The former practice could not lead us into idola- 
try: the latter practice mighty and most prohably 
would, produce that result. 

* For the purport of the apostle's declaration is this: They shall 

* pay divine worship to the dead, even as men formerly paid sach 
' worship in Israel. In like manner also, the g'lory due unto God 

* has been changed into error by those who see not the truth. 

* For the natives of Neapolis still sacrifice to a g-irl, whom I take 
'to have been the daughter of Jephthah: and the Egyptians 
'honoured Thermutis, Pharaoh's daughter, as a goddess: and 

* many such things as these have happened in the w orld to the 

* seduction of those who are seduced. But we christians must 
*not indecorously honour the saints; rather ought we to honour 

* him, who is their sovereign Lord. Let, then, the error of sedu- 
' cers cease. The Virgin Mary is no goddess. To the peril, 
'therefore, of his own soul, let no one make oblations in her 
'name." Epiph. adv. Hser. lib. iii. haer. 78. 

From the passage before us it is indisputable, that, by the early 
church, the apostle's demonia were understood to mean, not devils^ 
but demon-gods: that is to say, his demonia were thought to be 
the souls of canonized mortals. Equally indisputable is it, that the 
prophecy was explained, as announcing a lamentable apostasy in 
the christian church to the worship of dead men, who during their 
lives had been revered on account of their virtues or their services. 

The same apostasy to the worship of dead men is clearly fore- 
told also by St. John; who adds some additional particulars, by 
which the predicted apostates might be the better distinguished 
whenever they should be developed. 

And the rest of the men, which were not killed hy these plagues, yet 
repented not of the works of their hands^ that they should not worship 
demon-gods and idols of gold and silver and brass and stone and 
wood, which can neither see nor hearnor walk. Rev. ix. 20. 

The predicted worshippers of dead men, were also, it seems, to 
be worshippers of images; which they would fabricate to them» 
selves out of various materials. 



INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 185 

For, since the idolatrous worship of the dead \s 
foretold, as about hereafter to creep into the church, 
we can scarcely conceive a more likely mean for its 
introduction, than this precise unauthorized\iVdiQ.i\Q.e 
of invoking the departed saints and especially the 
blessed Virgin to intercede with God on our behalf. 

II. The basis, upon which rests the entire argu- 
ment of the bishop of Aire, is the position, that, If 
it be lawful to ask the intercessory prayers of our 
living friends J it cannot be criminal to ask the in- 
tercessory prayers of our dead friends. 

Such being the case, it is evident, that the bishop 
defends the practice of invoking the saints solely 
and EXCLUSIVELY on the ground, that nothing more 
is requested from them than the benefit of their in- 
tercessory prayers. 

Hence we must obviously conclude, that, in the 
judgment of the bishop, genuine orthodoxy permits 
not a single iota beyond a request to the saints that 
they would intercede for us with God, For, since 
the invocation of the saints is defended upon this 
special ground alone ; the bishop tacitly confesses, 
that on any other ground it is indefensible. 

The avowed premises, then, of the bishop are these: 
In their invocation of the saints, the Latins merely 
and solely request the benefit of their intercession. 

Now, of these very premises, which avowedly 
form the basis of the entire argument, I more than 
doubt the accuracy. 

1. That they are Moi perfectly accurate, is openly 
acknowledged even by the bishop himself. 

" If any one of our doctors,^' says he, " pushed on 
' by a blind zeal, has gone so far as to ascribe to the 
^ saints a degree of power and efficacy which belongs 
' only to Jesus Christ ; know, that we vindicate not 
' his excess : and it were unjust to make the catholic 
< body in general responsible for certain exaggerations 
' in particular.^^^ 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 274, 275, 
^2 



186 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

Doubtless such treatment of the collective Latin 
church were unjust: yet, if an unauthorized and un- 
scriptural practice bring forth the evil fruits of certain 
exaggerations injurious to the high dignity of our 
only Lord and Saviour, I should think, that this cir- 
cumstance does not speak much in favour of the prac- 
tice. Be this, however, as it may, though the bishop's 
reluctant confession be warily thrown into the hy- 
pothetical form, it clearly amounts to an acknowledg- 
ment, that certain of the Latin doctors^ pushed on 
by a blind zeal, have gone so far as to ascribe to 
the saints a degree of power arid efficacy which 
belongs only to Jesus Christ, Hence, according to 
the bishop's own confession, there have been doctors 
in the Roman church, who, not content with merely 
asking the saints to intercede for them^ have invo- 
cated those imaginary patrons in such a manner, as to 
imply of necessity that they possess a degree of 
poiver which belongs to God incarnate alone. Such 
conduct his lordship tenderly denominates an excess: 
I am myself unable to distinguish it from idolatry, 

2, But, while the bishop professes not to vindicate 
this conduct, and while he avowedly rests his defence 
of hagiolatry upon the exclusive innocence of begging 
the mere intercession of the saints ; he himself 
shews, by the very adduction of his own selected 
authorities, that he is prepared to ^o far beyond di 
simple request that they would intercede for him in 
prayer to the Almighty. 

In vindication of the Latin practice, he adduces 
Irenaeus, Origen, Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nazian- 
zen, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Asterius, Ephrem, 
Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria : and he says, 
doubtless very truly, that he could have filled a whole 
volume with such citations. Of whatever these fa- 
thers maintain, therefore, the bishop, by the very 
circumstance of his adduction, professes his full and 
entire approbation. 

What then is it, which these fathers do maintain? 
In their invocation of the saints, do they confine 



INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 187 

themselves to a simple request, that those saints would 
intercede for them? Or do they advance far beyond 
any such narrow and limited and insipid petition? 

The oldest of them, Irenasus, says not a word about 
any invocation whatsoever:* others of them merely 

* Irenaeus calls the Virg^In Mary the advocate of the virgin Eve: 
whence, I presume, the bishop is willing- to infer that, if in the 
judg-ment of Irenccus an advocate^ Mary might in the judgment of 
Irenseus be safely invocated. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 279. 

Such implied reasoning, even if we choose to understand Ire- 
naeus literally, is altogether inconclusive. It is neither impossible 
nor improbable, though in truth we know nothing about the mat- 
ter, that glorified saints in heaven may pray for the well-being of 
the church upon earth: but, on such a supposition that the Vir- 
gin Mary is thus our advocate, I perceive not how we are thence 
authorized to solicit her intercession. The conclusion does not 
legitimately follow from the premises. 

I wish, however, that the bishop had compared Irenseus with 
Irenaeus, ere he had produced with so much confidence the 
authority of that father. 

** As Eve/' says Irenseus in the passage defectively cited by the 
bishop: **As Eve, by the discourse of a fallen angel, was seduced 
'to apostatize from God, disobeying his word: so Mary, by the 

* discourse of a good angel, was evangelized, that she sliould bear 

* God in her womb, obedient to his word. And, as the former was 

* seduced to disobey God: so the latter was persuaded to obey 

* God^ in order that the Virgin Mary might thence become the 

* advocate of the virgin Eve. Thus, as the human race was doomed 

* to death through a virgin: so the human race might be delivered 

* also through a virgin; the balance being equally held, between 
*the disobedience of one virgin, and the obedience of another." 
Iren. adv. Haer. hb. v. c. 16. § 3. 

From a tasteless love of unmeaning antithesis, Irenaeus amuses 
himself with running a laborious parallel between the virgin Eve 
and the Virgin Mary: and, as man fell through the disobedience 
of Eve and was restored through the obedient parturition of Mary, 
he chooses, in the course of it, rhetorically to denominate the lat- 
ter the advocate of the former. What he means, is plain enough 
from his own concluding explanation; which, however, the bishop 
has chosen totally to omit: but, if any one doubt the meaning of 
Irenaeus, let him turn to another passage, where that father luns 
the self-same parallel with a distinct and explicit statement of its 
purport. 

"As Eve, by disobedience, became the cause of death both to 
•herself and to the whole human race: so Mary, though having 

* a predestined husband, yet being obedient as a virgin, became 

* the cause of salvation both to herself and to the whole human race, 

* — Thus did the knot of Eve's disobedience receive its solution 

* through the obedience oF Mary: for what the virgin Eve bound 



188 DimCULTIES OP ROMANISM. 

request the intercessory prayers of the saints^ 
according to the mode which the bishop has pre- 
scribed as the standard of Latin orthodoxy: but others 
of them, again, so far as I can judge, certainly as^ 
cribe to the saints a degree of power and efficacy 
ivhich belongs to God incarnate alone. 

Gregory Nazianzen, as cited approbatively by the 
bishop, beseeches Cyprian and Athanasius and Basil, 
now called to their everlasting rest, that they would 
cast down their regards upon him from on high, that 
they would govern his discourse and his life, that they 
would conjointly feed his flock, that they would give 
him a more perfect knowledge of the Trinity, that 
they would draw him'^where they themselves are, and 
that they would place him in the midst of them and 
their assemblies."^ 

Asterius, as also cited approbatively by the bishop, 
supplicates the martyr Phocas, that he would pray for 
the sufferings and maladies of surviving christians, as 
he himself had prayed to the martyrs his predecessors: 
and he further begs, that Phocas, in the plenitude of 
his power, would give to his survivors those blessings 
which he himself possesses.! 

Basil, as likewise cited approbatively by his lord- 
ship, advises that, whoever is in trouble, he should 
address himself to the saints; whoever is in joy, he 
should do the same: in the first case, that he may be 
delivered from his troubles; in the second, that he 
ma}^ be secured in his prosperity.J 

Cyril of Alexandria, as finally cited by the bishop 
with full approbation^ prays to St. John the apostle, 
that he would open to him the mystery of the Word 
of God descending into this nether world, that he 
would teach him something grand and sublime, that 

* by her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed by her faith." Iren. adv. 
Haer. lib. iii. c. 33. § 2, 3, 4. 

No person, I think, can compare these two passages together 
without perceiving, that, when Irenaeus calls Mary the advocate of 
Eve, he simply means to say, that, as death came into the world by 
E^ve, so life was restored toEve and all her posterity, not excepting 
the virgin-mother herself, through the rhetorical advocacy of Mary. 

• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 282. f Ibid. ^ Ibid. p. 285. 



INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 189 

he would remove the stone and discover to him the 
well of life, that he would give him power to draw 
water from it after his own example, and that he 
would conduct him to the proper source.^ 

The bishop defends the invocation of the saints, 
on the express ground, that to ask their intercessory 
prayers cannot be criminal; and he declares, that 
he vindicates not the excess of any exaggerating 
doctor, who, pushed on by a blind zeal, has gone so 
far as to ascribe to the saints a degree of power 
and efficacy ivhich belongs only to Jesus Christ : 
yet does he cite, with entire approbation, four wri- 
ters, who, so far from limiting themselves to a bare 
request for saintly intercession, actually beseech the 
saints to grant to them various graces and blessings 
and benefits which God alone can bestow. Cyril of 
Alexandria erects St. John into a second Holy Ghost : 
Gregory Nazianzen prays, for illumination and di- 
rection, to Basil and Cyprian and Athanasius : Basil 
invocates the saints for deliverance in adversity, and 
for grace in prosperity : and Asterius beseeches Phocas 
to grant to him an abundant entrance into the king- 
dom of heaven. If the hhhoY^ justifies this ofiensive 
idolatry, then he relinquishes the plea, that nothing 
is requested froin the saints except their friendly 
intercession: if he condemns it, then he has incongru- 
ously quoted Gregor}^ and Asterius and Basil and Cyril 
against his own certainly more reasonable opinion. 

3. Hitherto I have shewn the inaccuracy of the 
bishop's premises, partly from his own acknowledg- 
ment that some of the Latin doctors have ascribed to 
the saints a degree of power which belongs only to 
God incarnate, and partly from his own approbative 
citation of four of the early ecclesiastical writers : I 
shall now shew it yet more fully from various Latin 
prayers addressed to the saints, not for the purpose 
of simply requesting their intercession, but for the 
purpose oi receiving from them ivhat God alone is 
able to bestoiv. 

The bishop claims, that the catholic body in gene- 
* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 285, 286, 



190 DirFICULTIES OP ROMANISM. 

ral should not be made answerable for the excesses of 
a few indiscreetly-zealous doctors in particular.*" 
I have no wish to controvert the justice of his 

* It would have been well, if the bishop, in his treatment of pro- 
testants, had always borne in mind the principle of his own claim. 

I. His lordship exults over the discrepances of the continental 
reformers in regard to the invocation of the saints. Discuss. iVn^ic. 
vol. ii. p. 291—298. 

Yet, if we quote against him an idolatrous passage from a Latin 
author, we are then gravely told, that the Romanists do not vin- 
dicate those blindly-zealous doctors who ascribe to the saints a 
degree of power which belongs only to Christ, and that it were 
unjust to make the catholic body in general responsible for cer- 
tain exaggerations in particular. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 274, 275. 

Why the bishop should be at liberty to exult over the discre- 
pances of the continental reformers when slowly emerging from 
the darkness of many centuries, while it were palpable injustice in 
a protestant to allege the acknowledged discrepances of the Ro- 
manists in the matter of saint-worship, I am unable to discern. 

II. Against the reformers of our own church, the bishop, on 
this point, has not pretended to bring any charge of discrepance. 
Omitting every thing of the kind, he is satisfied with merely citing 
our excellent twenty-second Article. 

From the works of Bishop Montague, however, he produces 
what he would exhibit, as a discrepance from the doctrine of the 
Anglican church, and as au honest acknowledgment of the inno- 
cence and propriety of the Latin practice. 

Now, even had his lordship been accurate^ still he ought to have 
remembered the principle of his own claim, and to have refrained 
from the injustice of making the Anglican body in general re- 
sponsible for Bishop Montague's exaggeration in particular. But, 
in truth, he is altogether inaccurate : and, had he been careful 
to consult the English prelate himself, instead of borrowing his 
information at second-hand from some dishonest controversialist 
of older times ; he would fully have acquitted Montague of ro- 
manizing. I am not sufficiently skilled in the works of Latin 
writers, even to form a conjecture as to the faithless author, who, 
by the iniquity of fraudulent citation, has thus unhappily misled 
the respectable bishop of Aire : but I think it evident, that the 
same culprit, who has misled Mr. Butler in England, has also 
misled the bishop of Aire in France. Mr. Butler and the bishop 
alike produce Montague, for the self-same purpose, and in the 
self-same manner. But such a coincidence cannot be accidental: 
they certainly must have equally borrowed from the same source 
of misrepresentation. That the unprincipled author, whom at 
second-hand they have incautiously followed, has exhibited Mon- 
tague under totally false colours, is a fact of which any person 
may satisfy himself by a bare inspection of the original. It is, 
however, superfluous for me to say any more on the subject: the 
matter has already been fully discussed by Dr. Philpotts. See 
Letters to Butler, p. 55—60. 



INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. 191 

claim: but what will he say, should it turn out, that 
the injurious exaggerations to which he darkly alludes, 
are the property, not of mere foolish individuals^ 
but of the Latin church herself? 

The following documents are extracted from the 
collects and hymns to the saints, in the Hours accord- 
ing to the liturgical use of the church of Salisbury, as 
printed at Paris in the year 1520:—- 

Holy mother of God, who hast worthily merited 
to conceive him whom the ivhole world could not 
comprehend; by thy pious intervention wash away 
our sins, that so, being redeemed by thee, we may 
be able to ascend to the seat of everlasting glory ^ 
where thou abidest with thy Son for everJ^ 

Comfort a sinner; and give not thy honour to the 
alien or the cruel, I pray thee, O queen of heaven^ 
Have me excused with Christ thy Son, whose anger 
I fear and whose fury I vehemently dread: for 
against thee only have I sinned, O Virgin Mary, 
full of celestial grace, be not estranged from m.e. 
Be the keeper of my heart: sign me with the fear 
of God: confer upon me soundness of life: give me 
honesty of m^anners: and grant m,e at once to 
avoid sins and to love that which is just, O virgin 
sweetness, there neither was nor is thy fellow A 

O singularly special Virgin, mild among all 
having delivered us from our sins, make us mild 
and chaste. Grant to us a pure life: prepare for 
us a safe journey: that, seeing Jesus, we may 
always rejoice together,\ 

Holy Mary, succour the m>iserable, assist the 
pusillanimous^ cherish the mourners, pray for the 
people^ interjjose on behalf of the clergy, intercede 
for the devout female sex,^ 

Let our voice first celebrate Mary, through whom 
the rewards of life are given to us, O Queen, thou 
who art a m^other and yet a chaste virgin, pardon 
our sins through thy Son, May the holy assembly 

* Collect, in Hor. ad usum Sarum. Paris. 1520. fol. 4. in Bur- 
net's Hist, of the Reform, vol. ii. p. 143. 

t Ibid fol. 44. \ Ibid. fol. Z3. § Ibid. fol. SO. 



192 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

of the an^els^ and the illustrious troop of the arch- 
angels^ now blot out our sins by granting to us the 
high glory of heaven."^ 

O George, renowned martyr , praise and glory 
befit thee^ endowed as thou art with military glory. 
By thee, the royal maid, existing in sorrow before 
the ivorst of dragons, was preserved. In our soul 
and inmost heart, we beseech thee, that, ivith all the 
faithful, we, being washed from our sins, Tnay be 
joined to the citizens of heaven: that so, together 
with thee toe may joyfully be in glory, and that 
our lips ivith glory may render praises to Christ, \ 

O martyr Christopher, for the honour of the 
Saviour, make us to be in mind worthy of the love 
of God, ^According to ChrisV s promise, for thou 
obtainest what thou demandest, grant to thy sor- 
rowful people the gifts which thou hast demanded 
by dying. Confer comfort, and remove heaviness of 
mind: and cause, that the examination of the 
Judge m,ay be mild toward all,\ 

O William, thou good shepherd, father and 
patron of the clergy, cleanse us in our agony; 
grant us aid; remove the filihiness of our life) and 
grant the joys of a celestial crown,\ 

O ye eleven thousand glorious maids, lilies of vir- 
ginity, roses of martyrdom, defend me in life by 
affording to meyour assistance: and shew yourselves 
to me in death by bringing the last consolation,^ 

* Collect, in Hor. ad usum Sarum. Paris. 1520. fol. 80. in Burnet's 
Hist, of the Reform, vol. ii. f Ibid. fol. 77. + Ibid. fol. 78. 

§ Ibid, fol. 80. Bishop Burnet has given the Latin originals of 
all these extraordinary prayers. He adds another, not easily sur- 
passed in blasphemous absurdity. The votary supplicates Christ 
to save him by the blood of Thomas a Becket, sometime archbishop 
of Canterbury I and the Lord is reminded, how he has crowned this 
same Becket with glory and honour, and how he has placed him 
above all the works of his hands; that so, through the merits and 
prayers of the said Becket, he may be delivered from the fire of hell, 
ibid. fol. 12. No modern Romanist can condemn these prayers, with- 
out at the same time condemning the approved liturgy of the entire 
church of Salisbury, itself in full and uncensured communion with 
the church of Rome, immediately before the Reformation in Eng- 
land. When such rituals were approved and commonly used in the 
JLatin church of the West, was^ or was noty a reformation necessary ? 



INVOCATION OP THE SAINTS. *193 

The documents now before us are not the mere in- 
sulated and unauthorized productions of some indis- 
creet doctor, who, as the bishop speaks, pushed on 
by a bh'nd zeal, has gone so far as to ascribe to the 
saints a degree of power and efficacy which belongs 
only to Jesus Christ: they are not the productions of 
a rash individual, for whose exaggerations in particu- 
lar the catholic body in general must not be made 
responsible. No such comparatively unimportant 
character do the documents now before us sustain. 
On the contrary, they form parts of a regularly-au- 
thorized liturgy, according to the use of the church 
of Salisbury : and, that they met with very general 
acceptation among what the bishop styles the catho- 
lie hody^ seems abundantly evident, from the circum- 
stance of the book, whence they are extracted, having 
been printed at Paris. All doubt, however, of their 
acknowledged orthodoxy is removed by the express 
stamp of papal approbation. To the industrious re- 
peaters of that prayer to the Virgin, which stands 
the second in the preceding collection, Pope Celes- 
tine was pleased to grant three hundred days of 
pardon : and, as that prayer is one of the most objec- 
tionable in the whole number, we may be morally 
certain that he would be little inclined to condemn 
the others. Here, then, we have a collection of 
prayers to the Virgin and to the saints^ publicly 
used in the liturgical service of the Latin churchy 
and sanctioned by the high authority of the pope 
himself But these prayers, thus circumstanced, go 
far beyond a mere request, that the Virgin and the 
saints loould offer up for us at the throne of grace 
their intercessory supplications: because they idola- 
irously beseech creatures to grant to creatures those 
gifts and graces and blessings and benefits^ which 
the Mmighty Creator himself is alone able to be- 
stow. The case, therefore, so far as respects the ar- 
gument professedly and spontaneously adopted by 
the bishop of Aire, stands, I apprehend, in manner 
following : — 



*194 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

If his lordship honour the preceding documents 
with his approbation: then, he at once vindicates the 
most revolting idolatry, and relinquishes the ground 
freely chosen by himself; for he has professed to de- 
fend the invocation of the saints, solely and exclu- 
sively on the principle, that, since it is right to 
ask the intercessory prayers of the livings it cannot 
he wrong to ash the intercessory prayers of the dead. 
But, if he mark the preceding documents with his 
indignant reprobation, as grossly and disgustingly 
idolatrous : then he censures the authorized practice 
of his church : and thus by unequivocally declaring 
that this alleged infallible church both may err and 
has erred, becomes tainted with what the Latins 
deem heretical pravity. 

III. An English laic, not much versed in ecclesi- 
astical antiquity, may perhaps be somewhat startled 
at the bishop's copious adduction of authorities from 
the early fathers in favour of hagiolatry; for, if such 
were the practice of the primitive church, and if this 
practice (at least as inculcated by Asterius and Basil, 
and Cyril of Alexrndria, and Gregory of Nazianzum) 
be idolatrous, we shall be compelled to charge idola- 
try upon the church of Christ, even in that age of 
purity which immediately succeeded the teaching of 
the apostles themselves. 

Thus may an unversed English layman be well 
startled by an appalling consequence, which seems 
inevitably to flow from the bishop's copiousness of 
citation: nor has his lordship thought it expedient to 
furnish his correspondent with any clue, by which he 
may extricate himself from his perplexity. On the 
contrary, he leaves his Anglican friend to infer, that 
the primitive church up to the very time of the 
apostles^ was wont toinvocate deadm,en andwomen^ 
not only to intercede ivith God on behalf of sur- 
vivors^ but even to bestow upon them what the Deity 
alone is able to give. Such being the case, I shall 
supply that explanation of the apparent mystery, 
which the bisWop has left unsupplied. 



INVOCATION OF THE SAINTS. *195 

The oldest authority cited by the bishop, is Origen, 
who flourished about the middle of the third century: 
for, in regard to Irenaeus, whom he likewise cites, and 
who lived about the year 180, this father, as I have 
already observed, says not a single word relative to 
any invocation either of the Virgin or of the saints. 
His oldest authority, then, flourished about the mid- 
dle of the third century: and all the others flourished 
considerably later^ when apostatic corruption was 
now rapidly invading the church. As for the really 
ancient fathers, such as Justin and Polycarp and Igna- 
tius and Clement of Rome, the bishop altogether pre- 
termits them. Perhaps the English layman may be 
curious to know the reason of this pretermission. 
Nothing, in good truth, can be more simple. From 
the really ancient fathers we hear not a syllable as to 
the invocation of dead saints: and the bishop clearly 
could not quote from them, in favour of the practice, 
declarations which never existed. So far as my own 
knowledge extends, the bishop cannot produce 

A SINGLE authority, FOR THE INVOCATION OF THE 
SAINTS HOWEVER MODIFIED, FROM THE TWO FIRST 

CENTURIES."^ The English layman will now under- 

* Dr. Priestley, I must allow, has discovered, that Justin Mar- 
tyr, if not precisely a worshipper of the saints, was at least a wor- 
shipper of the angels. But it is no disparagement to the learned 
bishop of Aire, that he has not studied Greek in the same school 
as Dr. Priestley. This circumstance will perliaps enable us to ac- 
count for the fact, that his lordship has not cited Justin as a witness. 
The bishop, I suspect, pretermitting* the translation of Dr. Priest- 
ley, is content to render Justin's Greek in the same manner as 
myself. Lest, however, any inferior Latin theologian should be 
tempted, in an evil hour, to supply the bishop's apparent defec- 
tiveness of citation, and should thence produce Justin as a primi- 
tive advocate of angel-worship, I shall subjoin the original passage, 
accompanied by the Latin version of Langus, and by Dr. Priest- 
ley's, and my own English translations. 

'AXX' 'Exsn/ov ts, xoli tov ^af aurou ^Tiov sX^ovra xolI 
5l5a^avTa Yi\ka^ tolvtol xai tov tojv ccXXgov znto^khitiv xcd s^o^O' 
loufxsvcov a^adwv ayysXwv tflparov, nvsu/uia ts to 'jr'po^TiTixov, 
cfs^ofJiiS^a y.0Li 'TTpotfxuvoufXSv, Xoyw xa/ oKyi&sia <ri|XwvT£^, xai 'Kavrl 
^ouXofJbsvw |xa^s?v, w^ iSidcv)(Pri^sv^ dcp6ovi^g 'Trap SiSovTsg* — Jus- 
thi. Apol. i. vulg. ii. p. 43. 



*196 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

stand, why his lordship's very oldest authority is not 
more ancient than about the year 250. 

Thus speaks Justin in his own Greek: and his statement is 
explained by Langus in manner following; — 

Varum Bunc Ipsum (scil. Patrem); et, qui ah eo venit, atque ista 
nos et aliorum obseguentium exsequatorumqtie (ad voluntatem ejus) 
bonorum angelorum exercitum docuit, Filium; et Spiritum prophe- 
ticum; colimus et adoramus, cum ratione et veritate venerantes, atque 
unicuique discere atque nosse volenti, pro eo atque edocii sumuSy cart" 
dide fhaecj tradentes. 

Yet, omitting, for obvious reasons, the latter part of the sentence. 
Dr. Priestley has given us the following translation of its former 
part: — 

** Him, and the Son that came from him, and the host of other 

* good angels who accompany and resemble him, together with 

* the prophetic Spirit, we adore and venerate, in word and truth 
'honouring them.'* — Hist, of Corrupt, part i. sect. 7. Works, vol. 
V. p. 59. 

In the hands, then, of Dr. Priestley, Justin appears as the wor- 
shipper of angels: but I can discover nothing in the passage, save 
an avowal by Justin, on the part of the catholic church, that all 
christians, within forty years from the death of St. John, wor- 
shipped conjointly 4:he Father and the Son and the prophetic 
Spirit; that they had been taught that doctrine and practice by 
the generation which immediately preceded them, and which by 
chronological necessity must have conversed with St. John and his 
contemporaries; and that, as they had received from their prede- 
cessors, so they were prepared freely to communicate to their 
successors. 

" Him the Father; and the Son, who came forth from him, and 

* who instructed us both respecting these things, and respecting 

* the army of the other good angels who_ follow him, and who 

* resemble him; and the prophetic Spirit: these three we worship 
*and we adore, honouring them in word and in truth, and 

* ungrudgingly delivering to every person who wishes to learn as 

* we ourselves have been taught.'* 

I apprehend, that Justin uses the expression other good angels 
relatively to the Son; because it is his unvaried doctrine, that the 
Son is that angel or messenger of Jehovah, who appeared to the 
ancient patriarchs, and who always received their adoration as the 
Supreme Being. — See Justin. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 278 — 281. 
These other good angels or messengers humbly follow him the 
chief messenger, resembling him in point of holiness and purity. 

The Son and the prophetic Spirit, Justin and the whole 
CHURCH, as the fact is abundantly indicated by the use of a plural 
phraseology, adored in conjunction with the Father: but never 
did that holy martyr worship the angels, save in the unrivalled 
translation of Doctor Priestley, 



WORSHIP OF RELICS. 193 



CHAPTER XVL 

The Difficulties of Eomanism in respect to the 
Worship of Belies, 

^ Some persons, who call themselves christians/ 
says the bishop of Aire, ' blush not with shameful 
^ ingratitude to censure the honours which we pay to 
^ the memory of the martyred heroes of our religion. 
^ These men charge it upon us as a crime, that we 
^ preserve their remains, that we cherish their ashes, 
*^ that we ornament and visit their tombs: and yet, 
*with strange inconsistency, they attach themselves 
^ to the least object, which may recal to their recol- 
' lection a beloved and departed friend. But, how 
^ can that, which in the institutes of society is natural 
^ or innocent or laudable, suddenly become, in the 
* institutes of religion^ absurd and criminal and ido- 
^latrous? 

^ In beholding the relics of the saints. In approach- 
^ ing their mortal remains, a religious awe takes pos- 
^ session of our senses: and the recollection of their 
^ virtues and their good deeds vividly impresses itself 
^ upon our imagination, A still small voice seems to 
^ ivSsue from their tombs, which invites us to admire 
^and to imitate them. These feet, it exclaims, walk- 
^ ed constantly in the paths of justice: these hands 
^ were always innocent and pure: that mouth was 
^ never opened, save either to praise God or to bless 
^and benefit mankind: those limbs ministered only to 
< virtue and charity. Victims of martyrdom or of 
^ penance, an eternal weight of glory recompenses 
^ them for their passing tribulations: and, while 
^ crowns are assigned by Christ to their happy souls 
^ in heaven, he will not leave their mortal remains 
^ without honour in the dust of the tomb. When we 

R 



194 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

' pray for extraordinary graces, our supplications are 
' not addressed to the relics which lie before us. hovv- 
' ever holy and venerable they may be. It is God, 
^whom we bless for having glorified them: it is he, 
' from whom we implore through them the same 
' mercies: it is he, from whom we invoke grace, with 
Uhe assistance and concurrence of this or of that 
^ saint, whose relics are dear to us, and whose me- 
' mory is precious before him. From God then, as 
' its source, the worship, with which we honour re- 
Mies, originates: and to God, as its end, it ultimately 
' and terminatively reverts. 

'' These are our sentiments: nor have we ever en- 
' tertained any other. If a person believes that we 
' hold a different opinion, he deceives himself. Men 
' talk of erroneous and superstitious notions, which 
' we have often taken up concerning relics: but I have 
' never been able to discover them. In the respect 
' and the homage, which we pay to the holy relics, 
' where can even a shadow of idolatry be discov- 
' ered.'^* 

I. In this very eloquent passage, the bishop, it 
must be confessed, has made out a sufficiently plau- 
sible case for the use and veneration of relics. 

It is true, indeed, that ajealous scripturalist cannot 
discover by what authority his lordship defends the 
invocation of grace from God, with the assistance 
and concurrence of some favourite saint, whose re- 
lics are dear to the ardent votary: neither can he 
comprehend, why such assistance and concurrence 
should be at all necessary to the operations of the 
Lord omnipotent. It is true, moreover, that he is 
somewhat staggered with the frank admission, that 
w^orship, though professedly originating from God as 
its source and reverting to God as its end, is never- 
theless paid in its progress to insensible relicst. But, 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xv. 

■j- In saying" worship, I use the bishop's own language. The ti- 
tle of the letter now under consideration is Culte des Reliques,- 
and, in the present passage he says, Le Culte dont nous honorons 
les JleUques, — Discuss. Amic vol.ii. p. 309. 



WORSHIP OF RELICS. 195 

while these particulars in the bishop's case are not 
altogether satisfactory, we must at least fairly ac- 
knowledge, that, if there be no great good, there can 
be no great harm, in employing the relic of a saint as 
we employ a lock of hair severed from the head of a 
dear departed friend; in employing it, that is to say, 
for the purpose of exciting devout reminiscences. 

His lordship, then, avowedly rests the whole 
strength of his argument upon this explanation: and 
so confident is he of its accuracy, that he declares,, 
that no other sentiments have ever been entertained, 
and that he has never been able to discover those su- 
perstitious notions which have been charged upon the 
veneration of relics. The entire merit, therefore, of 
the case rests upon the alleged fact, that relics are 
simply used as recordatory aids to devotion^ and 
that at no period have they ever been viewed under 
any other aspect. 

This, if I mistake not, is the position taken by the 
bishop. Consequently, by the accuracy or inaccura- 
cy of the position, his argument must either stand or 
fall. 

11. The grand objection to the veneration of relics, 
however innocent it may be in the first instance, is 
the indisputable fact, that 2^e have no authority for 
it in Scripture, and the too reasonable apprehension 
that it will soon degenerate into a rank and degrade 
ing superstition. 

That any such degeneracy has ever taken place^ 
the bishop strenuously denies: but, as I have already 
observed, even in his own statement of the matter, 
we are encountered by much that is highly objection- 
able; and, in the citations which he himself has made 
from certain of the later fathers, and to which others 
of a similar description may easily be added, we as- 
suredly meet with some strange superstitious phanta- 
sies, which convey an idea to the mind very different 
from that of a mere excitation of devout recollections. 
The bishoDj however, rests his argument upon this 



196 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

last point exclusively ; with a declaration, that no 
other sentiments were ever entertained. But his 
declaration is proved, even by his own citations, to be 
inaccurate. His argument, therefore, by the very 
terms of its statement, becomes untenable, 

^Men,^ says his lordship, Ualk of erroneous 
' and superstitious notions, which we have often taken 
^up concerning relics: but I have never been able to 
"' discover them.' 

I marvel to hear such language from the learned 
prelate, when he himself quotes with approbation Ba- 
sil and Chrysostom and Gregory of Nyssa. The word 
superstition may doubtless convey very different 
ideas to a catholic of the Gallican church and to a 
catholic of the reformed English church: but, what- 
ever may be thought of the term itself, the bishop's 
citations most certainly prove, that notions^ far ex- 
ceeding the measure laid down by his lordship^ have 
been attached to the efficacy of relics. 

If we may credit Basil and Theodoret, and Chry- 
sostom and Gennadius, and Euagrius and Gregory 
the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa, and various others 
who might easily be mentioned, the relics of the saints 
are not only useful as exciting devotional remi- 
niscences: but they are likewise mighty ramparts, 
which are capable of protecting towns from the mili- 
tary assaults of their enemies; they are champions, by 
whom all disasters are turned away from us; they are 
strong rocks, which dissipate and nullify Ihe snares 
of unseen demons, and all the craftiness of Satan; they 
possess such astonishing virtues, that the very touch 
even of the shrine which contains them will bring 
down a blessing, and that the touch of the relics them- 
selves will accomplish all the desires of those who are 
admitted to so great a favour.* 

* Basil. Homil. xx. in quadrag. Martyr. Oper. vol. i. p. 5o3. 
Homil. xxvi. de Mart. Mamant. Oper. vol. i. p. 600, 601. Theo- 
dor. de Grace, affect, curat. Serm. viii. Oper. vol. iv. p. 593, 594, 
600. Chrysostom. Homil. xxxii. in Epist. ad Rom. Oper. vol ix. 



WORSHIP OP HELICS, 197 

Several of these extraordinary declarations are ap- 
prohatively cited by the bishop: and yet he roundly 
declares, so widely does he differ from us Anglicans 
in his ideas of superstition, that, let men talk as they 
please of erroneous and superstitious notions in the 
matter of relics, he himself has never been able to dis- 
cover them. 

p. 759. Homll. Ixix. in Petr. et Paul. Oper. vol. i. p. 856. Ho- 
mil. Ixx. Encom. Martyr, ^g-ypt. Oper. vol; i. p. 869. Gennad. 
de Vir. Iliust. c. vi. Euagr. Hist.-Eccles. lib. i. c, -13. Gregor. 
Magn. Epist. lib. vii. epist. 23. Greg-or. Nyss. in quadrag. Martyr, 
Orat. iii. Gregor. Nyss. de Martyr. Theod. 

The two most curious specimens of reliquary superstition are 
those mentioned by Gennadius and Euagrius, as referred to 
above. 

From the former we learn, thatNisibis, being a frontier town, 
and thence liable to b'e attacked b}^ the enemies of the Roman 
empire, was fortified by the Emperor Constantine with the body 
of holy James its defunct bishop; who, for the express purpose 
of defending it from hostile assaults, was carefully buried within 
its walls. 

By the latter we are taught, that, for a similar military pur- 
pose, the body of holy Symeon the Sty lite, with liis iron chain, 
was conveyed to Antioch. Here his credit as an efficacious cham- 
pion rose so high, that the Emperor Leo, anxious for the security 
of his dominions, wished to obtain from the Antiochians this 
cheap and therefore peculiarly valuable defence: but the prudent 
citizens knew too well their own interest to part with it. Our 
City has no ivalh, was their reply, as we are assured by Euagrius: 
hence we brought hither the most holy body of Symeon, that it miglit 
serve us in the stead bothof wall and of bulwark. Their reason was 
so satisfactory to Leo, that he forthwith assented to their wishes. 
Euagi'ius adds, that many parts of the body remained to his own 
time, and that he himself had been privileged to see the head. He 
further remarks, that, during the episcopate of Gregory, Philip- 
picus solicited a loan of the holy relics, that so he might with the 
greater safety make a military expedition into the East. 

Yet, says the bishop of Aire, after stating his own view of the 
subject: These are our sentiments; Noa hate we ever, exteh- 

TAIXED AXY OTHEH. 

An English layman, whose studies had run in a totally different 
line, might probably have found him^self unable to contradict the 
bishop, and might thence have been led implicitly to receive his 
assertion. It is painful, however necessary, to point out these 
dangerous inaccuracies, into which 1 shall always regret that such 
a man as the bishop of Aire should have fallen, 

R 2 



198 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

III. Mere unscriptural superstition, gross and ab- 
surd as it may be, is however, I fear, not the only- 
charge which must be preferred against the use of re- 
lics. 

The bishop himself, while he would exhibit them 
as simple recordatory aids to devotion^ speaks ne- 
vertheless of a certain worship as being their due: 
and this worship, in his description of it, I am unable 
to distinguish from the worship which is rendered to 
the Divinity. 

According to his lordship's theological system, this 
worship originates from God and reverts to God: but, 
in its progress, it rests upon the relics of the saints. 

With the bishop's statement I have no wish to deal 
captiously: yet, so far as I can perceive, the following 
is the only sense which it is capable of bearing: — 

A worship, originating from God, and reverting 
to God, must inevitably be a strict and proper loor- 
ship of God, But, according to the bishop, it is 
with this identical worship, resting upon them in 
its progress from God to God, that relics are 
honoured. Therefore, the self-same worship, which 
originatively and terminatively is paid to God, is 
paid transitively to senseless and inanimate relics: 
for, so far as I can understand his lordship's account 
of the matter, the worship in question is first ad- 
dressed to God, next addressed transitively to relics, 
and then ^/za/Zy once more addressed to God.* 

This statement of the mental process of relic- 
worship, must be received, I apprehend, as the 
bishop's gloss upon the decision of the second Coun- 
cil of Nice. 



* I give the bishop's own words, that, if I have been guilty of 
any invokmtary perversion, my error may be immediately dis- 
covered and corrected. 

C'est done de Dieu, comme de sa source, que provient le 
cultedont nous honorons les reliques; et c'est a Dieu, comme a 
sa derniere iin^ qu'il remonte et se termine* Discuss. Amic, voL 
ii. p. 309. 



WORSHIP OF RELICS, 19& 

^ I adore and honour and salute the relics of the 
^ saints, as of those, who have wrestled on behalf of 
^ Christ, and who have received grace from him to 
^ accomplish healings and to cure disorders and to 
^ eject demons: according as the church of the chris- 
^ tians hath received from the holy apostles and fa- 
^ thers down even to ourselves.^* 

Such is the authoritative decision of that famous 
council, expressed in the unanimously adopted words 
of Theodosius the lesser: and, to whatever extent it 
may require the worship of relics to be carried, the 
payinent of ani/ adoration to these objects cannot but 
strike a plain man as a palpable breach of the second 
commandment.! 

The council, we may observe, anathematizes all 
persons, who refuse to adore and to honour and to 
salute the relics of the saints: and, in favour of such 
extraordinary worship, it boldly pleads the authority 
of the holy apostles. 

Whenever that authority shall be produced, I will 
freely submit: but, until that requisite preliminary 
shall have been accomplished, I shall incline to fear 
the denunciation of God in the second commandment 
much more than the anathema of the individuals 
assembled in the second Council of Nice. At all 
events, the actual use of relics is a matter, which far 
exceeds their mere employment for the purpose of 
exciting' devout reminiscences. Any statement, 
therefore, to the latter effect, is a statement calculated 
to mislead rather than to inform an unsuspecting 
English laic. 

IV. The propriety of relic-worship the bishop 
w^ould demonstrate through the medium of various 
miracles wrought at the shrines or over the relics of 
the martyrs. 

* Goncil. Nicen. secund. act. i. Labb. Concil. Sacros. voL 
vii. p. 60. 

f By the second commandment I mean the portion of Scripture 
contained in Exodus xx. 4 — 6, 



200 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

Every miracle, recorded in Scripture, I devoutly 
receive: but I do not therefore pledge myself to ad- 
mit the portents, which are detailed in the thauma- 
turgic calendar of a superstitious church. The 
utterly unscriptural character of the practice, in fa- 
vour of which these miracles are alleged to have been 
performed, is alone sufficient to make them suspi- 
cious or even worse than suspicious: and, in the 
nineteenth century, the less his lordship says respect- 
ing such apocryphal wonders, the more prudently he 
will act. 

V. But the bishop is willing also to take a some- 
what more rational line of argument. Adopting the 
declaration of the second Nicene Council, and supply- 
ing its deficiency of evidence, he would trace the 
worship of relics to the very apostolic age itself, thus 
establishing its undoubtedly divine origination. 

1. In the Apocal3^pse, St. John beholds, under the 
altar in the figurative heaven, the souls of them that 
were slain for the word of God and for the testimony 
which they held.^ 

Hence his lordship infers, that the bodies of these 
martyrs had been buried under the altar of a literal 
christian oratory, and that they were venerated in the 
apostolic age precisely as relics are now venerated by 
the Latin church. 

2. When the protomartyr Stephen was dead, 
devout men, as we Anglicans understand the passage, 
carried him out for the evident purpose of giving him 
decent christian burial. t 

But the bishop proves from the place, that the 

* Rev. vi. 9. 

t Acts viii. 2. Compare Sophoc. Ajac. ver. 1071, 1072. The 
same Greek verb, c-vyKo^Mt^M, is used both by Luke and by 
Sophocles, for the purpose, as we Anghcans deem, of expressing 
the same action. No person will suspect, that Menelaus was jea- 
lous, lest Teuser should cmry off the corpse of Ajax for the purpose 
of converting its several members into relics: yet the bishop 
would thus interpret the object of the devout men, when they 
carried off the body of the murdered Stephen. 



T'f^^ 



WORSHIP OF RELICS. . 201 

early believers, under the very sanction of the apos- 
tles, revered the relics of Stephen. 

3. I;i a similar manner, when Polycarp was dead 
in the flames, his afiectionate flock wishing to extri- 
cate the scorched remnant of his body for the plain 
purpose of decorously burying it, the centurion threw 
it back into the fire: and the Smyrneans could pro- 
cure only the calcined bones, which with much 
lamentation they disposed of where it ivas meet; that 
is to say, they committed the bones to the grave in 
which they would have buried the body.* 

From these few recorded circumstances, the bishop 
would establish the fact, that the church of Smyrna, 
in the second century, preserved and worshipped the 
relics of Polycarp. 

4. Furthermore, the bishop adduces the churches 
of Africa, in the second and third ages, as rivalling 
the churches of Asia in their zeal for relic-worship: 
and he proves his point by the authority of Tertullian 
and Cyprian. According to his lordship, these fathers 
speak of sacrifices being ofiered in honour of the 
dead: according to myself, they speak of thanksgiv- 
ings being commemoratively offered up to the Al- 
mighty, for that he had been pleased to receive into 
glory the souls of the departed martyrs, t 

Hence the bishop demonstrates the zeal of the 
early African churches for the alleged apostolic 
practice of relic- worship. 

If, what is well nigh impossible, the exemplary 
bishop of Aire has a personal enemy; the bitter wish 
of that enemy will be, that his lordship may always 
thus argue against the principles of the church of 
England. 

* Epist. Eccles. Smyrn. § xvii, xviii. 

f Tertull. de Coron. Mill. § iii. Oper. p. 449» Cyprian, Epist^ 
i, xiij xxxix. Oper. p, 3, 27^ 2%^ 77^ 



202 DIFFICULTIES OF R03IANISM. 



CHAPTER XVII, 

The Difficulties of JRomanism in respect to the 
Veneration of Images, 

From his vindication of relic-worship, the bishop 
of Aire proceeds to the arduous task of defending the 
veneration of images.* 

I. That images are actually worshipped in the 
church of Rome, the bishop is so far from denying, 
that he himself cites with praise the decision of the 
second Council of Nice. 

^ The honour paid to the image passes to its proto- 
' type: and he, who adores the image^ adores in it the 
' person of him whom it represents.^! 

This passage, unless I wholly misunderstand it, 
declares that we adore the image with the same spe- 
cies of worship as we adore its original. Hence, if 
the image represent the Virgin Mary, we adore the 
image with the same worship as we adore the Holy 
Virgin: and hence, if the image represent Christ, we 
adore the image with the identical worship which we 
render to God incarnate. 

IIo Lest, however, we should labour under any 
misapprehension, let us again hear the second Nicene 
Council: and let us afterward attend to the exposition, 
which has been given by James Naclantus, bishop of 
Clugium. 

1. In the first action of the council, we are pre- 
sented with the following explicit decision, under the 
form of a creed or symbol: — 

^ I confess and agree and receive and salute and 
' adore the unpolluted image of our Lord Jesus Christ 
^ our true God, and the holy image of the holy mother 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett. xvi. 

f Council Nicen. secund. act. vii. Labb. Concil. Sacros, vol, 
vii. p. 55^, 



VENERATION OF IMAGES. 203 

^ of God who bore him without the conception of seed. 
' In like manner, also, I receive and adore the images 
' of the holy apostles and prophets and martyrs and 
^fathers and eremites; not, however, as gods. — To 
' those, who adore not the holy and venerable images, 
^ let there be anathema. — To those who blaspheme the 
' precious and venerable images, let there be anathe- 
^ma. — To those, who diligently teach not the whole 
' Christ-loving people to adore and salute the venerable 
' and holy and precious images of all the saints, let 
' there be anathema/^ 

2, Thus speaks the second Council of Nice: let us 
now attend to the exposition of the bishop of Clu- 
gium, which was published at Venice in the sixteenth 
century, and which (so far as I am aware^ has never 
been censured or prohibited by the pope and church 
of Rome. 

' We must not only confess, that^the faithful in the 
^church worship before an image; as some over- 
' squeamish souls might peradventure express them- 
^ selves: but we must furthermore confess, without 
' the slightest scruple of conscience, that they adore 
' the very image itself; for, in sooth, they venerate it 
' with the identical worship wherewith they venerate 
^ its prototype. Hence, if they adore the prototype 
^ with that divine worship which is rendered to God 
^ alone^ and which technically bears the name of 
' Latria^ they adore also the image with the same 
^ Latvia or divine ivorship; and, if they adore the 
' prototype with Duliaor Hyperdulia, they are bound 
^ also to adore the image with the self-same species of 
' inferior worship.^! 

* iConcil. Nicen. secund, act. i. Labb. ConciL Sacros. vol. vii. p. 
60, 61. See also act. vi. p. 541. In this place a distinction is ex- 
pressly made, between using images commemorailvely only, and 
using images adorallvely: and those persons, who maintain the 
former opinion to the exclusion of the latter, are condemned as 
heretic's. The same idolatrous strain pervades tlie epistle of the 
patriarch Tarasius to Constantine and Irene in tlie seventh action 
of the council, p. 577 — 585. 

f Erg-o non solum fatendum est, fideles in ecclesia adorare 



204 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

Nothing is more evident, than that Naclantus is 
here giving a regular exposition of the image-wor- 
ship, enjoined, under pain of its anathema, by the 
second Nicene Council: and nothing, so far as I can 
judge, is more evident also, than that his exposition 
is perfectly accurate. Now the church of Rome 
fully acknowledges the second Council of Nice, as a 
legitimate and infallible council: therefore, the esta- 
blished doctrine of the church of Rome, as set forth 
ably and clearly from the second Nicene Council by 
James of Clugium, is, that ^ the worship paid to an 
' image of Christ is the very same in kind and degree 
' as the worship paid to Christ himself.^ 

III. By way of hiding the deformity of this idola^ 
trous council, the bishop of Aire attempts to set up a 
difference between absolute worship and relative 
worship. 

Absolute worship, of whatever degree, is paid to 
the prototype alone: relative worship, on the con- 
trary, is the sole worship paid to the image.* 

I admit, that, according to the council, ^he, who 
^ adores the image, adores in it the person of him 
^whom it represents:' and thence I admit also, that 
the image would not be adored, save on account of 
its supposed relation to the person of whom it is 
deemed the similitude. But still I am unable to dis- 
cern, how the bishop's distinction can absolve his 
church from the awful charge of gross idolatry. The 
most ignorant pagan, in bowing down before his idol, 
never thought of adoring it, except with that species 
of worship which the bishop terms relative. His 
constant language, as we learn from Arnobius, was, 

coram imagine, ut nonnuUi ad cautelam forte loquuntur; sed et 
adorare imaginem, sine quo voliieris scrupulo : quin et eo illam 
venerantur cultu, quo et prototypon ejus. Propter quod, &i 
illudhdbet adorare Latvia; et ilia, Latvia: si Dulia vel Hyperdulia; 
et ilia pariter ejusmodi cultu adorandaest. Jacob. Naclant. Clug- 
Expos. Epist. ad. Roman, cap. i. cited in Homil. iii. against peril 
of idolatry, p. 197. Oxon. 1802. 
• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 326. 



VENERATION OF IMAaES. 205 

^ Not that bra^ and gold and silver, when fashioned 
^ into statues, are gods; but that, through these images, 
^ the invisible gods are honoured and worshipped.''^ 
The ancient pagan and the modern bishop of Aire 
alike contend for the propriety of what they alike 
denominate relative adoration. But, if this relative 
adoration be not idolatry, it is difficult to compre- 
hend how the sin of idolatry could ever have existed: 
for no person ever yet worshipped an idol without 
reference to the being, whom that idol was thought 
to represent. 

That the adoration of images is enjoined by the se- 
cond Nicene Council, and that the decision of that 
council has been received by the church of Rome, is 
certain and indisputable. The bishop, if it so please 
him, may term such worship relative: but it is not, 
on that account, the less idolatrous. When the image 
of Christ is worshipped, let the matter be disguised 
as it may, that image is worshipped with the identi- 
cal worship that is rendered to Christ himself. Thus 
evidently speaks the second Council of Nice: and 
thus its decision was rightly understood and explained 
by James Naclantus. 

In fact, by no dexterity of evasion can it be other- 
wise understood, ^We adore,' say the Nicene fa- 
thers, ' the unpolluted image of our Lord Jesus Christ 
*our true God: and, when we adoro the imagQ, we 
^ adore in it the person of him whom it represents. ^ 
What then is the worship rendered to the image ? 
Clearly it is the identical worship which is rendered 
to Christ. I admit that the image is worshipped, he- 
cause it is deemed a representation of God incarnate; 
just as the image of Jupiter was worshipj>ed, because 
it was deemed a representation of Jupiter himself : 
but still the image is worshipped; and, let that wor- 
ship be relative or positive, the worship in question is 
identical with the worship rendered to God incarnate. 

* Amob. adv. Gent, lib. vi. p. 103. See also Clementin. Homil 
X. § 21. 

s 



.906 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

Let the bishop shift and explain as he will, this is 
the point to which we shall always be ultimately con- 
ducted: and, so long as the second Nicene Council is 
the standard of Latin orthodoxy, James of Clugium 
must ever be esteemed an honest and consistent ex- 
positor. 

With the Scripture in their hands, it is really mar- 
vellous, how the Nicene fathers could have dared to 
establish idolatry, and to disfranchise'' the genuine 
seventh ecumenical council which had expressly con- 
demned this horrible abomination.* 

' Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, 
^ or the likeness of that which is in heaven above, or 
^in the earth beneath, or in the water under the 

* The language of the Nicene fathers is so extraordinary, that 
it ought not to be withheld from our English laity. 

'The venerable images, both of the dispensation of our Lord 
'Jesus Christ as he became man for our salvation, and of our 

* unpolluted lady the holy mother of God, and of the god-like 
' angels, and of the holy apostles and prophets and martyrs, and 
' all the saints, I salute and embrace and adore, according to their 

* just degrees of honour, rejecting and anathematizing, from my 

* whole soul and intellect, that synod, which was congregated 
' through madness and folly, and which has been denominated 
' the Seventh Council: though, by persons who think rightly, it 
'is lawfully and canonically styled a false synod, as being aliena- 
' ted from all truth and piety, and as having rashly and boldly and 

* atheistically barked ag-ainst the heaven-delivered ecclesiastical 
' legislation, and as having insulted the holy and venerable 
' images, and as having commanded them to be removed from 
' the holy churches of God — Anathema to the calumniators of 
' Christians ! Anathema to the breakers of images ! Anathema 
' to those who apply to images the scriptural denunciations 
' against idols ! Anathema to those who refuse to salute the holy 
' and venerable images ! Anathema to those who call the holy 
'images idols! Anathema to those who aid and abet the dis- 

* honour ers of the holy im.ag'es!' — ConciL Nicen, secund. act. i. 
Lahh. Condi Sacros. vol. vii. p. S&, 57. 

The atheistical council, upon which all these curses are impre- 
cated, and upon which all this torrent of rancorous abuse is 
poured, was guilty of no crime, save that of scripturally con- 
demning gross idolatry. To have a full conception of the mys- 
tery of iniquity, a person ought, like myself, to have perused the 
acts of the second Nicene Council. 



VENERATION OF IMAGES. 207 

*' earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, 
^nor serve them.^^ 

Where, in the awful word of Jehovah thundering 
from Mount Sinai, is there any idle distinction be- 
tween relative worship and positive worship? In the 
book of God I read not such vain subtilties: their 
existence was never dreamed of in the ancient church 
of Israel. The command is positive^ explicit^ nni- 
versal. If the wisdom of the Lord hath made no ex- 
ceptions, shall the puny dexterity of quibbling school- 
men dare authoritatively to propound them, and 
under an anathema to enforce them upon the catholic 
church of Christ? If God hath spoken unlimitedly, 
shall a presumptuous council dare to set limits to his 
decision? The adoration of images is enjoined by 
the second Nicene Council, in express opposition to 
the sound and scriptural determination of its imme- 
diate Constantinopolitan predecessor: and this adora- 
tion, lamentable to say, is justified and vindicated by 
a Latin prelate of the nineteenth century, to whose 
general excellence report bears ample testimony. Yet 
all adoration of images is straitly prohibited by that 
jealous God, who is the sovereign Lord both of hea- 
ven and of earth. From one end of the Bible to the 
other, not a hint is breathed of the bishop's vain dis- 
tinction between relative worship and positive wor- 
ship. The adoration of images, under any pretence, 
is altogether forbidden. ' Thou shalt not bow down 
thyself to them^ nor serve them.^ 

IV. Notwithstanding the decision of the second 
Council of Nice, and the approved comment of James 
Naclantus, the bishop esteems the apprehensions of 
protestants, relative to the mischief which may flow 
from image-worship, to be purely chimerical. t 

Neither his own statement of its alleged principle « 
nor absolute matter of fact, will allow me to adopt 
his opinion. 

1. The extreme danger attendant upon the unholy 

* Exod. XX, 4, 5. t Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 359. 



20S DIPPICULTIj:S OF ROMANISM. 

practice, in the case of recent converts from pagan- 
ism, he himself, very fully, though perhaps not very 
discreetly, allows. 

According to his own confession, image-worship 
bears such an unhappy resemblance to pagan idolatry, 
that it were easy for recent converts to mistake the 
one for the other. On this ground he is willing to 
account for the otherwise unaccountable conduct of 
the ancient Council of Elvira, which strictly forbade 
images and pictures to be introduced into churches: 
and, on the same ground, he inclines to explain the 
extraordinary though acknowledged fact, that the 
apostles and their early successors did not adopt the 
^doration of images. These primitive and holy men, 
if we may credit his lordship, had no unseemly dis- 
like to image-\vorship in the abstract: but they 
thought it prudent, in their own particular case, to 
abstain from the practice, because they reasonably 
dreaded lest the new converts from paganism, should 
mistake orthodox Christian image-worship for unor- 
thodox heathen idolatry.* 

Whether the true reason of the fact be assigned, 
may admit of some dispute. The fact itself, that 
the apostles and their early successors did not wor- 
ship images, I agree with the bishop in esteeming 
most certain.! 

2. But, whatever danger of a mistake there might 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 350. 

\ The use of images, however, though they certainly were not 
worshipped by the apostles, was at least o? apostolic antiquity: yet 
I doubt whether this circumstance will much benefit the cause 
which has been espoused by the bishop. We learn from Irenseus 
and Epiphanius, that the Gnostics, who flourished in the age of 
the apostles, worshipped with misplaced devotion both pictures 
and images of Christ. The manufacturer of these sacred imple- 
ments is said to have been Pontius Pilate. Whether from this 
circumstance they were conceived to derive any peculiar sanc- 
tity, we are not informed. Be that as it may, image-worship seems 
to have been first associated with Christianity by the Gnostics, 
and from them to have been adopted as a most sound and edify- 
ing practice by the fathers of the second Nicene Council. — Iren. 
adv. Hser. lib. i, c. 24. § 9. Kpiph. adv. Hser. lib. i. hser. 27^ 



VENERATION OF IMAGES. 209 

he in the case of new converts from paganism, his 
lordship, in full accordance with the Council of 
Trent, deems the matter quite altered, when, by 
lapse of time, the place of new converts shall have 
been supplied by those more experienced believers^ 
whom the Spaniards denominate old Christians. 
Pagan idolatry having altogether ceased to exist, 
image-worship now becomes, not only exempt from 
all danger, but even in a very high degree useful and 
edifying. For, since Christianity has reigned among 
us during so many ages; and since, from their earliest 
childhood, the faithful learn to put no trust in images, 
and to ask from them no favour; there cannot possi- 
bly be any danger in the use of such implements.* 

(1.) In the latter part of this defence, even on the 
supposition of its containing an accurate statement, 
there seems to be a very singular species of incoii« 
sistency. 

According to the bishop, the faithful^ from their 
earliest childhood^ learn to put no trust in images^ 
and to ask from them no favour. 

Now, if this statement be accurate, it is impossible 
to refrain from asking, Where then can be the benefit 
or utility of adoring images? The second Nicene 
Council curses all persons who refuse to worship such 
puppets: and James Naclantus declares, that the faith- 
ful worship, not only before each imitative image, 
but even each imitative image itself ; adoring the 
image with the self-same adoration that is rendered 
to its prototype. Yet the bishop of Aire assures us, 
that, from their earliest childhood^ they learn to put 
no trust in images^ and to ask from them no fa- 
vou7\ Truly, if this be the case, the adoration of 
images, as prescribed by the second Nicene Council, 
and as practised by the rfiembers of the church of 
Rome, seems to be a nrost unaccountably unreasonable 
service. Our Latin brethren are required, under the 

• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 351. 
S 2 



210 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

pain of a curse, to worship images: nevertheless, if 
we may credit the bishop of Aire, they are carefully 
taught that this adoration will do them no manner of 
good ; for they learn, from their earliest childhood^ 
to put no trust in them, and to ask no favour 
from them. 

Certainly, the learned prelate, in his zeal to defend 
his church from the imputation of idolatry, inadver- 
tently charges her with an almost incredible measure 
of fatuity. The worship of images she strenuously 
enforces: but its total inutility she diligently incul- 
cates. Images, indeed, we must adore; but then we 
must put no trust in them, and ask from them no 
favour. 

(2.) It may be doubted, however, whether the 
bishop's statement be perfectly accurate: it may be 
doubted, whether the second Nicene Council, when 
it enjoined the adoration of images, meant to teach 
that we can derive no benefit from the practice. 

The following specimens, at least, of Romish devo- 
tion, extracted from the book of the Hours of the Vir- 
gin, for the use of the church of Salisbury, as printed 
at Paris in the year 1526, do not seem quite exactly 
to accord with the bishop's statement of the matter. 

' To all them that be in a state of grace, who de- 
' voutly say this prayer before our blessed Lady of 
^ pity, she will shew them her blessed visage, and 
^warn them of the day and hour of death: and, in 
^ their last end, the angels of God shall yield their souls 
^ to heaven. Such a person shall obtain five hundred 
' years, and so many lents of pardon, granted by five 

< holy fathers, popes of Rome. 

^Our holy father, Sixtus the fourth, pope, hath 

< granted to all them that devoutly say this prayer 
^before the image of ©ur Lady, the sum of eleven 

< thousand years of pardon. 

« These be the fifteen Go's, which the holy virgin 
^ St. Bridget was wont to say daily before tJie holy 
^ rood in St. Paul's church at Rome. Whoso says 



VENERATION OF IMAGES. Sll 

^ this a whole year, shall deliver fifteen Souls of his 
^next kindred out of purgatory, and shall convert 
^ other fifteen sinners to a good life: and other fifteen 
^ righteous men of his kind shall persevere in a good 
<life: and, what ye desire of God, ye shall have it, if 

* it be to the salvation of your souls. 

* To all them that before this image of pity shall 
^ devoutly say five pater-nosters, and five ave-maries, 
^and a credo, piteously beholding those arms of 

* Christ's passion, are granted thirty-two thousand 

* seven hundred and fifty -five years of pardon: and 
^Sixtus the fourth, pope of Rome, hath made the 
< fourth and fifth prayer, and hath doubled his afore- 
*said pardon/^ 

I am unable to reconcile the privileges thus devoutly 
granted to the worshippers of images, with th6 asser- 
tion of the bishop of Aire, that the faithful learUj 
from their very childhood^ to put no trust in them^ 
and to ask from them, no favour. At all events, if 
his lordship's casuistry be able to draw some subtle 
line of distinction, I greatly fear, that to all plain un- 
lettered persons the line will be altogether invisible. 
No man ever did, or ever will, adore an image, with- 
out putting his trust in that image, and without ex- 
pecting to receive some favour from itt 



* Hor. B. Mariae Virg. ad usum Sarum. Paris. 1526, fol. 38, 42, 
50, 54. apud Bp. Burnet's Hist, of the Reform, vol. ii. p. 138, 
139. 

t It is denied by the bishop of Aire, I3iat the Latins, after the 
fashion of the old pagans, suppose their images to be the recep- 
tacles or dwelling-places of the persons whom they represent. 

His lordship means, I presume, that no such doctrine has been 
formally promulgated by the church of Rome. This may very 
possibly be the case: but, unless, in matter of fact, the doctrine 
had long and generally prevailed, it is impossible to account for 
the extraordinary notions which have been entertained relative 
to the consecrated images and pictures. Legends exist, in which 
we are taught, that the images of the Virgin have spoken, that 
they have sung, that they have soared in the air like birds, that 
they have rolled their eyes, that they have sweat blood, that 
they have been transmuted into flesh, that they have wept and 



212 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

(3.) The bishop, however, is quite sure, that, where 
Christianity has been long established, image-worship 

lamented and groaned, — Jurieu's Contin. chap. xiv. Such cir- 
cumstances are gravely asserted to have taken place even within 
our own memory: for we are assured, that, at Rome, in the year 
1796, pictures of Madonnas opened and shut their eyes, images 
of saints altered their position; and crucifixes moved their eye- 
lids. — Zouch on the Proph. p. 180. Exactly the same alleged 
circumstances originally introduced and sanctioned the practice 
of image-worship. 'At first, the experiment v/as made with cau- 
*tion and scruple: and the venerable pictures were . discreetly 

* allowed to instruct the ignorant, to awaken the cold, and to gra- 

* tify the prejudices of the heathen proselytes. By a slow though 

* inevitable progression, the honours of the original were trans- 

* ferred to the copy: the devout christian prayed before the image 
*of a saint: and the pagan rites of genuflexion, luminaries, and 

* incense, again stole into the catholic church. The scruples of 

* reason or piety were silenced by the strong evidence of visions 
' and miracles: and the pictures, v/hich speak and move and bleed, 
^must be endowed with a divine energy, and may be considered 
*as the proper object of religious adoration. — Gibbon's Hist, of 
Decline^ vol. ix. chap. 49, p. 115. 

These pretended miracles were doubtless mere tricks, per- 
formed by the priests through the agency of springs and wires: 
for the imposture was discovered, when, with other similar im- 
ages, the crucifix of Boxley, which had been observed to bow, 
and to lift itself up, and to stir its head and hands and feet, and 
to roll its eyes, and to move its lips, and to bend its brow, was 
publicly broken in pieces, at St. Paul's cross, for the purpose of 
disabusing the long-deceived people. — JBurnefs Hist, of the He- 
form. Book III. vol. i. p. 232. Doubtless these pretended mira- 
cles were mere juggling tricks; and the bishop believes their 
divinity no more than I do: but still I perceive not, how such 
tricks and such legends could ever have come into existence, had 
not some vague superstitious notion prevailed, that the puppets 
were animated by the spirit of the persons whom they severally 
purported to represent. The very existence of the tricks and the 
legends demonstratively proves, against the bishop of Aire, the 
existence of the notion. For, assui'edly, no person would con- 
trive such tricks and manufacture such legends, who did not wish 
to impress and confirm the behef, that the consecrated images, 
like those of the ancient pagans, v/ere the receptacles or dweUing- 
places of the persons whom they represent. The notions, at- 
tached by the pagans to the image of Minerva, exactly correspond 
with those, which have been attached by the Latins to the image 
of the Virgin. Compare Virgil, ^neid. lib. il, yei% If 1 — 175, 
with Tasso's Gerus. Libei^t. cant, ii. 



VENERATION OF IMAGES. 213 

can never lead to idolatry; though, in recently-con- 
verted countries, the circumstance may easily occur. 

Such language, even in its very construction, is 
singularly paradoxical, not to say contradictory. I 
am perfectly aware, that the second Nicene Council 
anathematizes all those persons, who presume to apply 
the name of idols to the images which it requires us 
to adore: but if, contrary to the second command- 
ment, a statue be worshipped, I see not how the 
nature of the deed can be changed, by the mere ver- 
bal expedient of calling the statue an image rather 
than an idol. St. Paul knew nothing of the distinc- 
tion, which has been set up by the Nicene fathers 
and by the church of Rome after them. With him, 
the worship of an image was the same as the wor- 
ship of ark idol :^ and so, in the judgment of plain 
common sense, it must always be. Hence, to say, 
that in long-christianized countries image worship 
can never lead to idolatry, is a palpable contradiction : 
for image-worship and idolatry are identical. 

The opinion of Pope Gregory the great, as to the 
identity of image-worship and idolatry, corresponds 
with the opinion of St. Paul: but then it must be con- 
fessed that both Paul and Gregory flourished before 
the fathers of the second Nicene Council. 

According to the bishop of Aire, image-worship 
can never lead old-established christians into idolatry. 
Pope Gregory was of a different opinion: and, unhap- 
pily, he was borne out by facts. 

Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, finding it impossible 
to prevent his people from worshipping the images 
which had been unadvisedly set up in the churches, 
forthwith, like a faithful and vigilant pastor, brake 
the contemptible puppets in pieces. For this action 
he was censured by Pope Gregory: not, however, on 
the ground, that the people had not committed ido- 
latry, for THIS was most fully allowed by the Eg- 



214 DIFPICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

man prelate; but on the totally different ground, that 
images might be employed as a useful mean of con- 
veying instruction to the illiterate, though any wor- 
ship of them ought to be strictly prohibited.* 

* Gregor. Epist. lib. ix. Epist. 105. lib. xi. Epist. 13. aliter 9. 
Oper. vol. ii. Paris. 1705. The bishop of Aire's representation 
of this matter varies considerably from my own. His lordship 
exhibits Serenus as only anxious to prevent that idolatry which he 
thought very probably would take place: whereas, upon a careful 
inspection of the original, it appears to me, that the idolatry 
actually had taken places, and that Serenus brake the images on 
that very account. See Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 353; That the 
public may judge between us, I annex the identical statements of 
Gregory himself. 

I. Gregorius Sereno Episc. Massil. Quod fraternitati vestree 
tarn sera scripta transmittimus, non hoc torpori, sed occupation!, 
deputate. Latorem vero prassentium dilectissimum filium Cyria- 
cum, monasterii patrem, vcbis in omnibus commendamus, ut nulla 
hunc in Massiliensi civitate mora detineat, sed ad fratrem coepis- 
copum nostrum Syagi-ium, cum sanctitatis vestrse solatio, Deo 
protegente, proficiscatur. Prseterea indico dudum ad nos per- 
venisse, quod fraternitas vestra, auosDAM imaginum adoratores 
ASPiciENs, easdem in ecclesiis imagines confregit atque projecit. 
Et quidem zelum vos, ne quid manufactum adorari posset, habuisse 
laudavimus; sed frangere easdem imagines non debuisse, indica- 
mus. Idcirco enim pictura in ecclesiis adhibetur, ut hi, qui lite- 
ras nesciunt, saltem in parietibus videndo, legant quse legere in 
codicibus non valent. Tua ergo fraternitas, et illas servare, et 
uh earum adoratu populum prokibere, debuit: quatenus et litera- 
rum nescii haberent unde scientiam historiae coUigerent, etpopu- 
lus inpicturas adoratione minime peccaret. Gregor. Epist, lib. ix. 
epist. 105. 

II. Gregorius Sereno Episc. Massil. Convocandi sunt dispersi 
Ecclesiee fihi, eisque Scripturae, sacrse est testimoniis ostendendum, 
quia omne manufactum adorari non licet; quoniam scriptum est: 
Dominum Deum tuam adorabis, et illi soli servies. Ac deinde 
subjungendum, quia picturas imaginum, quae ad xdificationetn 
imperiti populi fuerant factx, ut, nescientes Uteras, ipsam histo- 
riam intendentes, quid actum sit discerent. Quia trai^sisse in 

ADOBATIONEM VIBERAS, IDCIRCO C03VOI0TUS "eS, UT EAS IMAGINES 

FRANGi pR^ciPEREs. Atquc eisdcm dicendum: si ad hanc in- 
structionem, ad quam imagines antiquitus factse sunt, habere 
vultis in ecclesia, eas modis omnibus et fieri et haberi permitto* 
Atque indica, quod nontibi ipsa visio histories, quse pictura teste 
pendebatur, displicuerit: sed iila adoratio, aujE picturis fue- 
BAT iNcoiMPETENTER EXHiBiTA. Atquc, iu his vcrbis corum men- 
tes demulcens, eos ad concordiam tuam revoca, Et, siquis ima- 



im 



VENERATION OF IMAGES. 215 

Now I cannot find, that the Massilians did any 
thing more, than what was subsequently commanded 
by the second Nicene Council, which the bishop of 
Aire stands pledged to obey. Images were origi- 
nally introduced into churches, on the plea of their 
aiding devotion in the capacity of mere instructive 
memorials. This use of images soon led to their be- 
ing worshipped: and, by Serenus and Gregory, such 
worship was pronounced to be idolatry. Thus stood 
the matter at the close of the sixth century: thus also 
was image-worship viev/ed, in the year 754, by the 
Council of Constantinople. But, when the second 
Nicene Council sat in the year 787, the worship of 
images was made to assume a totally different aspect. 
The act of the Massilians, which Serenus and Gregory 
had prohibited as manifestly idolatrous, was vindi- 
cated and sanctioned and enjoined^ under pain of 
an anathema, by the Nicene fathers. Between image- 
worship and idolatry^ the more ancient doctors could 
perceive no diflference: but the Nicene fathers threw 
quite a new light on the subject, by pronouncing that 

g-ines facere voluerit, minime prohibe: adorari mro imagines 
omnibus modis veta. Sed hoc sollicite fraternitas tua admoneat, 
ut ex visione rei gestae ardorem compunctionis percipiant, et in 
adoratione solius omnipotentis sanctae Trinitatis humiliter pros- 
ternantur. Gregor. Epist. lib. xi. epist. 13. aliter 9. 

The extract from the latter of these epistles is chronologically 
posterior to the former of them, and in fact refers to it. One 
might think the language sufficiently plain: I subjoin, however, 
the bishop^s comment in his own words. 

Ecoutez, je vous prie. Monsieur, ce qu' ecrivoit un grand 
pape a un eve que de Marseille, qui par un zele inconsidere avoit 
brise les images des saints, sous le pretexte qu'il ne faut pas les 
adorer. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 353. 

The English laic correspondent of the bishop has most proba- 
bly never opened the works of Pope Gregory. It may be doubted, 
whether his lordship wiU have given him a very distinct idea of 
of the transaction. 

I beg to make my acknowledgments to my friends Dr. Eller- 
ton and Mr. Crowe, for the trouble which they kindly took in 
making the above extracts, in the original Latin, from the work? 
of Pope Gregory in the Bodleian library. 



216 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

a worshipped image was something totally distinct 
from a worshipped idol. 

The bishop of Aire will perhaps say with Pope 
Gregory the second, that images are the representa- 
tions of Christ and his saints, while idols are the re- 
presentations of pagan divinities: whence he may 
argue, that, between the worship of the former and 
the worship of the latter, there is a marked and essen- 
tial difference. 

So may the bishop argue: but he will not, on that 
account, the more agree with Pope Gregory the first. 
The images, worshipped by the Massilians in their 
churches, were representations, not of the pagan gods, 
but of Christ and the Virgin and the saints; yet this 
identical image-worship ^ which was afterwards en- 
joined by the Nicene fathers under pain of an anathe- 
ma, was confessed by Gregory the first to be idolatry/; 
and, on that precise ground, was prohibited. 

But, contends the bishop of Aire, image-worship 
can never lead old-established Christians into idolatry. 

The bishop is perfectly in the right, provided only 
we caR admit, that the nature of an action can be to- 
tally altered by a change of nomenclature. Here, 
however, lies the diflBculty: and, notwithstanding all 
that his lordship has said on the subject, protestants, 
I apprehend, wilt still continue to think, with Sere- 
nus and Gregory the great, that the very act of wor- 
shipping an image, as that act is enjoined by the se- 
cond Council of Nice, inevitably causes the wor- 
shipped image to become an idol. As iov denyiiig 
that images ought to be worshipped, no member of 
the Romish church can take such a step without flatly 
contradicting the second Nicene Council, and thereby 
confessing himself to be an accursed heretic. 

V. According to his wont, the bishop of Aire at- 
tempts to strengthen his cause by the authority of 
the fathers. 

Whom then of the fathers does he adduce? Truly 
he adduces none save those, who flourished at a com- 



VENERATION OF IMAGES. 217 

paratively late period, when the innovation of image- 
worship had doubtless been introduced into the church, 
though by no means with universal consent 

Why did he not cite the two Clements, and Poly- 
carp, and Ignatius, and Justin, and Athenagoras?* 

* If the bishop does not cite those ancient fathers, he at least 
cites Tertulhan as an advocate of image-worship, and as an unex- 
ceptionable witness of its early-approved existence in the Chris- 
tian church. 

Tertullian, it must be confessed, though less ancient than Cle- 
ment of Rome and Polycarp and Ignatius and Justin and Athena- 
goras, flourished toward the close of the second century and at 
the beginning of the third century: yet, notwithstanding his an- 
tiqiuty, I doubt whether the bishop will find him a very effective 
ally. 

This father speaks of christians having cups ornamentally em- 
bossed with the parable of the lost sheep. The bishop chooses 
to consider these cups as being the sacramental chahces. I will 
not undertake to contradict him: because, in truth, Tertullian 
says nothing as to their precise character. They may therefore 
have been, and probably enough were, sacramental chalices. But 
what then? Because these sacramental chalices (we will say) 
were adorned, in embossed work, or possibly in enamel, with the 
yery appropriate parable of the lost sheep : have we here any- 
proof, that either Tertullian or his contemporaries were addicted 
to image-worship ? 

That the reader may be enabled to form a correct judgm.ent of 
the bishop's criticism, I subjoin, what his lordship has omitted, 
the precise words of Tertullian. 

A parabohs licebit incipias, ubi est ovis perdita a domino re- 
quisita et humeris ejus revecta. Procedant ipsse picturse calicum 
vestrorum. TertuU. de Pudic. Oper. p. 748. 

In this narrow space lies the bishop's entire demonstration, 
that TertuUian was an advocate of image-worship. 

But, in reahty, while he thus cites Tertullian as an authority, 
he destroys by his own hand the evidence which he had laboured 
to extract from that father. Though the christians of that period, 
if we may believe the bishop, were undoubted image-worship- 
pers, still they possessed not any images: and his lordship apolo- 
gizes for the acknowledged fact of their sot having images, on 
the ground, that, in their persecuted and uncertain condition, 
they could not easily carry such articles along with them. 

The sanctity and efficacy of an image depends not, I presume, 
upon its magnitude. If the christians of the second age had 
affected such manufactures, as Pope Gregory calls them, they 
Height easily have fashioned portable images of no greater size 

T 



218 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

He himself incidentally informs us, The apostles 
and thei?' early successors hneio nothing of image- 
worship* Hence it were vain labour to seek a non- 
entity in the writings of the primitive fathers. 

than a chalice. The bishop's apology, however, is altogether 
built upon the indisputable fact, that these alleged {mage-wor- 
shippers had, after all, sro images. Certainly, his lordship's demon- 
stration of the image-worship of the second age is not a little 
paradoxical- 



ADORATION OF THE CROSS. 219 



CHAPTER XVIIL 

The Difficulties of Romanism in respect to the 
Adoration of the Cross* 

A DISCUSSION of the worship of images finally con- 
ducts the bishop of Aire to a defence of the adora- 
tion of the cross/* 

* After so many subjects of dispute/ says his lord- 
ship to the English layman, ' it is, in truth, a lamen- 

* table circumstance, that, between us and you, there 
^should still remain a difficulty to be surmounted. 
^ On the one hand, I am reduced to ask of you the 

* reason of those injuries which are ofiered to the 
'cross of my Saviour: and, on the other hand, I find 

* it necessary to justify before christians those honours 
' which we render to that distinctive badge of Christi- 
^anity. I have traversed your country in all direc- 
^ tions: and I have never perceived in any part of it 
Uhe consolatory sign, which advertises a christian 
'stranger that he is travelling in a country of bre- 
'thren. Your reformation has not spared the cross: 
' every where has it cast that holy symbol to the 
'ground. Would it be deemed incompatible with 
^the cross: or has it acted under the often-confuted 
'pretext of superstition and idolatry? Has England 
' then forgotten, that she was delivered from idola- 
' try by the cross, and that her first apostles came 
' with that sacred standard in their hand to liberate 
' her from her errors and her idols? You will tell 
'me, that England has not forgotten the cross; for 
'she still retains it in the administration of baptism. 
' Much honour, in good sooth, do you confer upon 
'the cross! Nothing remained, save to exclude, 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett, xvii. 



220 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

' from the sacrament which makes us christians, the 
' sign by which w^e show that we are christians. And 
^ yet let us thank the divine mercy, that it has not 
M^een altogether obliterated among you. Perhaps 
' the use of the cross in baptism, which you still 
' retain, may eventually lead you to re-establish it in 
^ the credit and honours of which your ancestors have 
' so unjustly despoiled it.'* 

I. In prosecuting this subject, it will be useful, for 
the purpose of ascertaining the ground upon which 
we really stand, to resort to the authoritative decla- 
ration of the second Nicene Council. 

' When w^e salute the life-giving cross,' says the 
Constantinopolitan patriarch. Tarasius, in the seventh 
action of that famous synod, ' we all sing with united 
•^voices, the following hymn:— 

' Thy cross, Lord, we adore: and we adore the 
' spear, which pierced the vivifying side of thy good- 
' ness.'t 

II. The second Council of Nice, then^ has received 
and decreed the adoration of the cross. Hence the 
bishop of Aire stands pledged, either to defend such 
adoration, or to censure the decision of an acknow- 
ledged ecumenical council. The latter could not be 
done w^ithout incurring the guilt of heretical pravity: 
the former, consequently, Vv^as, without hesitation, 
preferred. 

1. In performance of the task, thus imposed upon 
him by the Nicene fathers, his lordship has entered 
into a discussion respecting the purport of the word 
(idoration: and he has doubtless shewn, that both in 
the Hebrew and in the Greek, the term bears the tvv^o- 
fold sense of religious worship and civil homage. 

This criticism, though not altogether new (for the 
patriarch Tarasius had entered into something of the 

'* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 372, o7S. 

t Concil. Nicen. Secund. act. vii. Labb. Concil. Sacros, voL viL 
p. 564, 



ADORATION OF THE CROSS. 221 

same line of argument), is at least very just: but I do 
not distinctly perceive its bearing upon the jore^CTZ^ 
question. 

In which of the two senses does the bishop propose 
that we should adore the cross? 

If, in the sense oi religious worship; he inculcates 
idolatry: if, in the sense oi civil hornage; he recom- 
mends an absurdity. 

Scripture recognises only these two senses of the 
term: and, how either of them can benefit his lord- 
ship^s cause, I am unable to discern. 

In a word, the precise nature of the adoration of 
the cross, vindicated by the bishop, is left, so far as I 
can see, altogether undefined. He would be angry, 
I presume, were we to call it religious adoration: 
and he would accuse us of dealing in unseemly ridi- 
cule, were we to pronounce it civil homage^ such as 
is paid to the worshipful chief magistrate of a respec- 
table borough. Yet neither the Greek nor the He- 
brew Scriptures recognise any other than these two 
senses of the word adoration, 

2. The bishop produces against us that well-known 
text of St. Paul: ^ God forbid that I should glory, 
^ save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. ^^ 

I cannot discern the relevancy of its production. 
St. Paul, I apprehend, is not here speaking of the 
material timber whereon our Lord suffered; for I am 
not aware, that we have any scriptural authority to 
esteem the mere wood of the cross more sacred than 
any other piece of mere wood: but, by a very com- 
mon figure of rhetoric, so far from blushing at the 
ignominious death of his Saviour, he professes himself 
even to glory in the despised circumstance of his cru- 
cifixion. This circumstance, as a matter of disgrace 
and obloquy, the bishop well knows to have been 
perpetually cast in the teeth of the early christians 
both by the Jews and by the pagans. To their vitu- 

* Galat. vi. 14, 
t2 



f 



222 DIPFICULtIeS of ROMANISM, 

peration, the apostle clearly alludes: and, in retunij 
with a lofty spirit of holy superiority, he exclaims; 
' God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of 
^ our Lord Jesus Christ.^ So spake St. Paul: and so 
thinks every member of the Anglican church. 

3. It is contended, however, by the bishop, that 
there must be some extraordinary efficacy, either in 
the bare wood of the cross, or even in the mere act 
of making the sign of the cross: and, as a proof of 
this position, he alleges, that, by the power of the 
latter, the old pagan oracles were reduced to silence. 

I venture to doubt the fact: both because I have 
never seen any sufficient evidence for it; and because, 
from the nature of the gospel, it strikes me as a mat- 
ter altogether incredible. That the juggling oracles 
of paganism were gradually and naturally silenced by 
the successful propagation of the gospel, I fully be- 
lieve: but, as for any specific oracle being instanta- 
neously reduced to silence by the mere circumstance 
of some christian making the sign of the cross, I pro- 
fess myself quite incredulous. 

4* As usual, the bishop resorts to antiquity: and, as 
usual, he carefully shuns the really primitive fathers, 
Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp and Justin. What 
he actually does adduce, proves either too much or 
too little for his purpose. 

(1.) Julian reproached the degenerate christians of 
the fourth century with adoring the material timber 
of the cross; while they inconsistently, as he thought, 
refused to worship the buckler which had fallen from 
heaven: and the replication of his learned antagonist, 
Cyril of Alexandria, who flourished in the fifth cen- 
tury, more closely resembles the retort courteous than 
the honest and explicit denial. 

^ Would you have us reject the cross whence we 

• derive our recollection of all virtue, to entertain our 

* children and our women with your idle mythologi- 
^cal stories?^ 

Such is the strain in which Cyril proceeds through 



ADORATION OP THE CROSS. 223 

more than three folio pages of eloquent declamation 
relative to Ganymede and Alcmena and Semele and 
Amymone and Daphne and Venus: for the bishop 
has epitomized him with perfect fairness. 

Now, so far as I can understand the principles of 
sound reasoning, this does not strike me as being a 
satisfactory answer to the charge preferred by the 
imperial apostate. 

^Ybu christians adore the material timber of the 
* cross/ says Julian, who, having himself been once a 
christian, well knew the doctrines and practices of 
the age. ' What if we adore the cross,^ replies Cyril ^ 
^ we had better do that, than read lectures upon pa- 
" gan mythology.' 

This may be a very fair retort: but I cannot per 
ceive in it any reply to the allegation of the emperor 
Cyril rambles, from the diopetic buckler, to the prae 
tice of signing with the cross both inanimate houses 
and human foreheads; and, from the impure loves of 
the heathen deities, he passes to the great efficacy of 
the cross in awakening holy recollections: but he 
carefully shuns the distinct and precise charge of Ju- 
lian: from beginning to end, he never once denies 
the alleged fact, that, the cross ivas idolatrously wor- 
shipped^ Under the circumstances in which Cyril 
was placed, a non-denial amounts to an acknowledg- 
ment."* 

(2. ) The cross then seems to have been actually 
worshipped with religious adoration about the middle 
of the fourth century: and, if such authority be of 
any use to the bishop, I wish not to deprive him 
of it. 

As for the practice of signing the forehead with the 
cross, it clearly was very common in the time of 
Tertullian, who flourished at the latter end of the se- 
cond, and at the beginning of the third, century. 

To the simple use of this ceremony in baptism, for 

* Cyril Aks, eont. Julian, lib, vi. p, 194--19S, 



224 



DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 



the purpose of merely setting forth the solemn conse- 
cration of the neophyte to the service of his crucified 
Redeemer, no sober person will object: but the case 
is very different with that perpetual superstitious cru- 
eisignation, let a man's business be what it may, 
which the Latin church so strongly recommends to 
her disciples. The custpm, I acknowledge, had been 
introduced even as early as the days of Tertullian: 
but, from the evident peevishness of that father when 
asked for a scriptural proof of its obligation, I suspect 
that it was disliked and opposed by many who very 
rationally wished to take the Bible as their standard 
of religious duty.^ 

(3.) If Cyril of Alexandria prove too much for the 
bishop, as Tertullian certainly proves too little^ the 
Octavius of Minucius Felix, whom he also cites, 
may perhaps stand him in somewhat better stead. 

Minucius lived about the year 220 ; and the 
bishop claims him as an ally: yet his lordship's mode 
of dealing with this author may well be thought not 
a little extraordinary. 

In the work of Minucius, the pagan Cecilius ob- 
jects to the christian Octavius, the adoration of Christ 
and his cross, Octavius, in reply, acknowledges the 
adoration of Christ: but, as for crosses, he explicitly 
and readily denies, that christians either adored them, 
or even wished to adore them.t 

One might have thought, that nothing could be 
more intractable than such evidence as this: but the 
bishop does not despair of moulding it according to 
his wishes. He takes upon himself to interpret Oc- 
tavius as meaning to say, that christians adore not all 
crosses indiscriminately ; the crosses, for instance, 
on which the two thieves were executed: but that 
they certainly do adore those which are made in imi- 
tation of the true cross. 



* Tertull. de Coron. Mil. § iii. Oper. p. 449. 

t Minuc. Fel. Octav. p. 280, 284, Ouzel. Lugdun. Batay. 1672. 



ADORATION OP THE CROSS. 225 

To such a gloss upon a very plain passage I need 
scarcely point out the sufficiently evident objection. 
Even to say nothing of the total silence of Octavius 
respecting any adoration of Christ's cross^ the gloss, 
proposed by the bishop, is utterly irreconcilable with 
the context. Cecilius alleges, that christians adored 
Christ and his cross, in particular. Now, to this pre- 
cise allegation, a mere denial, that christians adored 
the crosses of all malefactors in general^ were plainly 
no answer: for it were nugatory to deny a matter 
which had never been charged upon them. The 
crosses, therefore, mentioned by Octavius in his re- 
ply, can only be material imitations of the true cross 
of Christ, then apparently beginning to be introduced 
into churches: and ^ these imitative crosses,' says Oc- 
tavius, ^ we neither adore nor wish to adore. '^ 

III. It is interesting to contrast the rapid and ex- 
plicit denial of Octavius with the rambling answer^ 
void of an;i/ denial, which Cyril of Alexandria gives 
to the Emperor Julian: and I apprehend, that these 
three several authorities, which have been adduced 
by the bishop hirqself, will throw a strong light upon 
the gradual progress of the staurolatrous superstition. 

The earliest fathers, as the bishop tacitly confesses 
by the circumstance of his never citing them, knew 
nothing of any veneration either of the material cross^ 
or of the sign of the cross. But the waning church 
did not long continue in this happy state of scriptu- 
ral ignorance. Most probably, from the natural and 
significant rite of imprinting the cross upon the fore- 
head in the administration of baptism, the practice of 
those perpetual crucisignations, which are mentioned 
by Tertullian, originated. The custom was not very 

* When the meaning of a passage is disputed, it is always the 
most fair to give the words of the original. 

Nam quod religioni nostrse hominem noxium et crucem ejus 
adscribitis, longe de vicinia veritatis erratis; qui putatis Deum 
credij aut meruisse noxium, aut potuisse terrenum — Cruces nee 
colimus, nee optam.us. I^Iinuc. Fel. Octav. p. 280, 284, 



226 DirFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

wise : but, at all events, it was not absolutely crimi- 
nal. That it involved no adoration of the cross, is 
quite clear from the direct testimony of Minucius 
Felix. But superstition is never stationary. Ac- 
cording to Julian, christians, about the middle of the 
fourth century, adored the material timber of the 
cross. That Julian meant religious adoration^ and not 
mere civil homage, is perfectly evident: and that 
Cyril understood him so to mean, is no less evident. 
Yet Cyril did not venture to contradict the taunting 
emperor. 

How then stands the matter, according to the evi- 
dence produced by the bishop himself? It stands, if 
I mistake not, in manner following: — 

At the beginning of the third century, the charge 
of worshipping the cross, as we learn from Minucius 
Felix, was ignorantly brought against the christians 
of that period, and by them was instantaneously and 
unambiguously repelled. 

In the course of the fifth century, Cyril of Alex- 
andria could give no denial to an exactly similar 
charge, which had been brought by Julian against the 
christian church of the middle of the fourth century. 

Nothing affords a more distinct idea of the progress 
of superstition, than a scrupulous accuracy in the 
specification of dates. 



BOOK 11. 

THE DIFFICULTIES ATTENDANT UPON THE CHUBCH 

OF ROME, IN REGARD TO HER CLAIM OP 

UNIVERSAL SUPREMACY. 



Fundata est Ecclesia super petram, unde Petrusnomen accepit, 
Non enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus apetra: sicut non Gliristus a 
Christiano, sed Christianus a Christo, vocatur. Ideo quippe ait 
Dominus; Super hanc petram sedijicdbo Ecclesiam meam; quia 
dixerat Petrus? Tu es Christus Jilius DeivivL Super hanc ergo, 
inquit, petram, quam confessus es, sedificabo Ecclesiam meam, 
Petra enim erat Christus, super quod fundamentum etiam ipse 
aedificatus est Petrus. Fundamentum, quippe, aliud nemo potest 
panere, praeter id quod positum est; quod est Christum Jesus. — 
August. Expos, in Evan, Johan, Tract, cxxiv. Oper, vol. ix. p. 206, 

'£»•; rotuTTi rvi crsr^a' ovtc sIttsv, 'Ett) raJ Tlsr^O), Ovrs 
yu^ iTn TO} (kvOaTTO), a?\.X' Itt] r^v ^]<rliv Wv eavrov, liCKXvi- 

ToZ Qeoo TOO ^mroq. — Chrysost. Serm,de Pentecost Oper. 
vol. vi. p. 233. Lutet. Paris. 1624. 



POLITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 229 



CHAPTER I. 
Respecting the Polity of the Primitive Church. 

At the time of the reformation in England, the 
spiritual administration of the church was vested in 
the three orders, denominated bishops^ priests and 
deacons : and the ground of this arrangement was, 
that such, from the very beginning, had been the 
polity of the primitive church. 

Respecting the divine origin of that particular form 
of ecclesiastical government, which, from its chief 
officer, bears the name of episcopal, I am not about 
to produce a regular dissertation. The matter lies 
within a very narrow compass. To demonstrate, that 
this polity was of no mere human appointment^ I 
require nothing more than the Bible, illustrated by 
the attestation of two of the oldest fathers to a naked 

MATTER OP FACT. 

The study of the old ecclesiastical writers will not, 
as the bishop of Aire imagines, conduct us of neces- 
sity to Rome: but, without (I trust) making us fire- 
brands and bigots, it will be very apt, if pursued 
with real candour and love of truth, to convert us 
into what is sometimes called high churchmen. 
From its abuse, this term may perhaps, in the present 
day of capricious innovation and unlearned neglect of 
antiquity, have become, with many, a sort of bug- 
bear: nevertheless, when rightly understood, the 
term is, after all, a very good term. In its genuine 
acceptation, it simply implies a love of Christian 
unity through an instrumental medium appointed 
by the loisdom of the Lord himself 

U 



230 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

I. Between Irenseusand St. John, there exists only 
the single link of Polycarp. Irenaeus was the scholar 
of Polycarp J and Polycarp was the disciple of St, 
John. 

Hence, I apprehend, Irenseus may be viewed as an 
unexceptionable witness, not only of facts which 
occurred in his own immediate tim.e, but also of any 
inseparably connected facts (if such there be) which 
are alleged to have taken place in the time of the 
apostles. 

Now the FACT, w^hich Irenaeus mentions as existing 
in his own time, is the Universal estahlishment of 
the episcopate. 

Respecting this naked fact, I perceive not how 
he could have been mistaken. We all know, without 
a possibility of error, that episcopacy is at this present 
moment established in England. The fact presents 
itself to our very eyes: and we are sure, that we can- 
not be deceived. In a similar manner, Irenseus could 
not but have known with absolute certainty, what 
form of ecclesiastical polity universally prevailed at 
the time when he himself flourished. This form, 
vouching for a mere cognizable fact, he declares to 
have been the episcopal. 

On the authority, then, of Irenseus, we may be 
quite certain respecting the naked fact, that in his 
days the episcopate was universally established: 
and from this early fact, (for the personal testimony 
of Irenseus runs back to within forty years of the 
death of St. John) we are naturally led to ask, whence 
that universally-established polity could have origi- 
nated ? 

The question is fully answered by the same Ire- 
nseus after a manner, which, I think, evinces the 
moral impossibility of error. 

He assures us, that in every church there had been 
a regular succession of bishops from the time of the 
apostles: and he himself, as we have observed, was 
separated from John only by the single intervening 



POLITY OP THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 231 

link of Polycarp. To enumerate the successions of all 
the churches, he remarks, would occupy too much 
space and time; he confines himself, therefore, as a 
single specimen of the whole, to the succession of 
the Roman church. On this topic he is very precise 
and particular. 

The Roman church itself, he tells us, was founded 
by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul. 
These inspired ministers of Go 1, having thus jointly 
founded that church, jointly delivered the episcopate 
of it to its first bishop Linus, who is mentioned by 
Paul in his second Epistle to Timothy.* Linus was 
succeeded by Anacletus; and, after him, in the third 
degree from the apostles, Clement received the epis- 
copate; which Clement, as Irenasus observes, saw and 
heard and conferred with the apostles themselves. t 
Clement was followed by Euaristus; Euaristus, by 
Alexander; Alexander, by Sixtus; Sixtus, by Teles- 
phorus; Telesphorus, by Hyginus; Hyginus, by 
Pius; Pius, by Anicetus; Anicetus, by Soter; and 
Soter, by Eleutherius; who thus, as Irenseus remarks, 
held, at the precise time when he was writing the 
sentence, the Roman episcopate in the twelfth degree 
from the apostles. 

To this succession he incidentally subjoins the 
origination of the episcopate in the church of 
Smyrna. 

At Rome, as we have seen, he vouches for the 
FACT, that the episcopate of that city emanated 
from the two apostles Peter and Paul; at Smyrna, 
he vouches for the fact, that the episcopate of that 
city emanated from the apostle John, He himself 
was the scholar of Polycarp: and Polycarp had not 
only been specially the disciple of John, but in his 
early youth he had received instructions also from the 
other apostles. By the apostle John, Polycarp was 

* 2 Tim. iv. 21. . f See Philip, iv. 3. 



222 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

appointed bishop of Smyrna:* and he presided in 
that see for the space of half a century, until he 
closed his career by martyrdom. Whatever he had 
learned from the apostles, this venerable man, accord- 
ing to Irenasus, delivered to the church: and the same 
testimony was borne, by all the churches of Asia and 
by those who had succeeded Polycarp, down to the 
time when Irenseus himself was engaged in w^'iting 
his work against heresies, t ' 

Thus we find, that the closely-connected fact, 
for which Irenseus vouches in addition to the pact 
v/hich he beheld with his t)wn personal eyes, is the 
appointment of the first bishops by the apostles 
themselves : nor, when we consider the circumstances 
under which he was placed, himself a bishop the 
successor of the holy nonagenarian Pothinus, himself 
the disciple of the martyr Polycarp, himself m point 
of actual knowledge reaching within forty years of 
the death of St. John, is it easy to conceive how he 
could have been mistaken in the specification of a 
fact which must at that time have been a matter of 
public and universal notoriety. 

II. Yet, though Irenaeus alone might be deemed 
sufficient for our purpose, it will be satisfactory to 
hear the additional testimony of a yet older witness. 
Irenseus, it will have been observed, mentions 
Clement, the friend and fellow-labourer of St. Paul, 
as being the third bishop of Rome: and he particu- 
larizes him by vSpecifying, that, in the name of the 
Roman church, he wrote most powerful epistles to 

* Irenseus loosely says, that Polycarp was appointed bishop of 
Smyrna by the apostles: but chronolog^y, I believe, will evince, 
that he must have been so appointed by the apostle John alone. 
Polycarp suffered martyrdom in the year 147; and he presided in 
the church of Smyrna during* fifty years. Hence he must have 
been consecrated in the year 97. But, at that time, all the apos- 
tles, save John, were dead. This last surviving* member of the 
apostohc college remained, as Ireuceus observes, to the time of 
Trajan. He died in the year 100. 

f Iren. adv. Hser. lib. iii. c. 3. 



POLITY 0$* THE i?RtMItIVE CHtTRCH. 233 

the Corinthians. Of these epistles, some persons, 
though perhaps with no very sufficient reason, have 
doubted the genuineness of the second: but none have 
ever controverted the genuineness of the first. That 
admirable letter, in every age of the church, has been 
universally received as the indisputable composition 
of Clement. 

Now, exactly on the same principle that Irenasus 
is an unexceptionable witness of the facts which oc- 
curred before his very eyes, Clement also is an unex- 
ceptionable witness of the facts which occurred to 
his certain personal knowledge. The contemporary of 
St. Paul, and Azm<ye//'(according to Irenseus) the third 
bishop of Rome, Clement could not but have known, 
simply as a matter of v act ^ whether the first bishops 
of the several churches were, or were not, appointed 
and consecrated by the apostles; and, if those bishops 
ivere so appointed and consecrated, he could not but 
have further known, still simply as a matter ^jTfact, 
whether the apostles so appointed and consecrated 
them merely to serve a temporary purpose of expe- 
diency, or whether they acted thus under a yet higher 
authority and with a view to an irrevocable system of 
ecclesiastical polity. 

All this, simply as a matter of fact, Clement, the 
companion and fellow-labourer of St. Paul, could not 
but have known with absolute and perfect certainty: 
for, if we deny so plain a proposition, we must deny 
also, that we ourselves are certain, whether there are 
at present bishops in England, and whether those 
bishops were consecrated by their predecessors. 

1. What, then, says the primitive Clement? Does 
his testimony agree or disagree with the testimony of 
Irenseus? Does he limit the institution of the episco- 
pate to the apostles, merely acting, for a brief pur- 
pose of expediency, as wise and prudent, but in this 
respect uninspired, men: or does he carrry it back to 
an authority, whence the apostles themselves derived 

V 2 



234 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

all the ecclesiastical power which they. ever pos- 
sessed? 

Let us hear the holy man, in his own words, deli- 
ver his evidence on behalf of a mere naked historical 

FACT. 

' It will behove us to take care, that, looking into 
' the depths of the divine knowledge, we do all things 
' in order, luhatscever our Lord hath commanded us 

* to do; and, particularly, that we perform our offer- 
' ings and service to God, at their appointed seasons: 
^ for these he hath commanded to be done, not rashly 
' and disorderly, but at certain determinate times and 
' hours. Therefore he hath ordained^ by his supreme 

* will and authority^ both -where ^ and by xvhat persons^ 
' they are to be performed : that so all things, being 
' piously done unto all well-pleasing, may be accepta- 

* ble to him. Hence it is, that they, w^ho make their 
' offerings at the appointed seasons, are happy and ae- 
^ cepted : because that, obeying the commandments 
' of the Lord, they are free from sin. And the same 
' care must be had of the persons, that minister unto 
^ him. For the chief priest has his proper services : 
' and to the priests their proper place is appointed : and 
' to the Levites appertain their due ministrations : and 

* the layman is confined within the bounds of what is 
' commanded to laymen. Let every one of you, 

* therefore, brethren, bless God in his proper station 
^ w4th a good conscience and with all gravity, not 
^ exceeding the rule of his service that is appointed to 
' him. The apostles have preached to us from our 
^ Lord Jesus Christ : Jesus Christ , from God Christy 
' therefore^ was sent by God: the apostles by Christ* 
^ So both their offices were orderly fulfilled, accord- 
' ing to the will of God. For, having received their 
' command, and being fully assured by the resurrec- 
' tion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and being convinced 
^ by the word of God and the evidence of the Holy 
^ Spirit, they went abroad, publishing that the king- 
' dom of God was at hand. Thus preaching through 



POLITY OP THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 235 

^ countries and cities, and proving by the Spirit the 

* first fruits of their conversions, they appointed out of 
^ them bishops and ministers over such as should af- 
' terward believe. And in truth, what -wonder is it^ 

* if they ^ to whom such a work was committed by God 

* in Christy established such officers as we before men^ 

* tioned; when even that blessed and faithful servant 
^ in all his house, Moses, set down in the Holy Scrip- 
^ tures all things that were commanded him. For 
^ our apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
' contentions would arise on account of the ministry. 

* And therefore, having a perfect foreknowledge of 

* this, they appointed persons^ as xve have before said; 

* and then gave direction how^ when they should die^ 
^ other chosen and approved men should succeed in 

* their ministry. Wherefore, we cannot think, that 
' those may justly be thrown out of their ministry, 

* who were either appointed fay them, or who were 

* afterward chosen by eminent men with the consent 

* of the whole church.^^ 

It will be recollected, that I profess only to be con- 
cerned with evidence to facts. What then are the 
FACTS, for which Clement, the friend and contempo- 
rary of the apostles, has undertaken to vouch ? 

He vouches, if I mistake not, in terms which can- 
not be misunderstood, for the divine institution and 
the eternal obligation of that form of ecclesiastical 
polity, which, from its highest order, is usually deno- 
minated episcopal ; he places the institution upon the 
same divine authority, as the matters ordained by 
Moses according to the commandment which he re- 
ceived from heaven: he declares, that one great 
object of the institution was the prevention of schism 
and disorder; it being the duty of each individual to 
serve God in his own appointed station, while the 
episcopate, viewed collectively, serves as a general 

* Clem. Roman. Epist. ad. Corinth, i, § 40—44. Abp, Wake's 
translation. 



236 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

centre of union: he specifies, that, as the apostles were 
ordained of Christ, so they, by his authority, ordain- 
ed their successors; the same power afterward de- 
scending, from generation to generation, down to the 
very end of time: and he intimates, as well knowing 
the mind of the inspired apostles from direct personal 
communication with them, that it was unlawful lo 
eject from their ministry (save, of course, when some 
unhappy and real necessity demanded their canonical 
deposition) officers, who had been consecrated either 
by the apostles themselves or by eminent men their 
legitimate successors. 

2, It has been said by those of our brethren, who, 
rejecting episcopacy, have adopted the presbyterial 
form of church-government, that the primitive bishops 
and presbyters were identical, and that originally 
there were no more than two degrees in the hierarchy. 

I have diligently resorted, not to the works of 
partisans on either side, but to the genuine monu- 
ments of antiquity itself: and I have not observed 
any evidence for such an opinion. 

Irenseus, as we have seen, gives a regular catalogue 
of the primitive Roman bishops: and he assures us, 
merely as a fact, that each church in his time pos- 
sessed a strictly-analogous episcopal succession. With 
Irenseus in Gaul, perfectly agrees his partial contem- 
porary Tertullian in Africa; for to the self-same na- 
ked FACT he also most unequivocally bears witness.* 

* Edant ergo orig-ines ecclesiainim suarum : evolvant ordinem 
episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio deciirrentem, 
ut primus ille episcopiis aliquem ex apostolis vel apostolicis viris, 
qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit, habuerit autorem et an- 
tecessorem. Hoc enim modo ecclesise apostolicae census suos de- 
ferunt: sicut Smyrnseorum ecclesia habens Polycarpum ab Jo- 
hanna conlocatum refert; sicut Homanorum Clementem a Petro 
ordinatum edit; proinde utique et caeterse exhibent, quos, ab 
apostolis in episcopatum constitutos, apostolici seminis traduces 
habeant, — TertuU. de Prsescript. adv. Hser. § xi. Oper. p. 107. 

It is difficult to believe, that Tertullian, in the second century, 



POLITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 237 

Now, if, contrary to the evident drift and purpose both 
of Irenseus and of Tertullian, these bishops had been 
identical with presbyters; then, in each church, how- 
ever large, there could have been no more than one 
presbyter at one time: for, in the account of these two 
ancient writers, it is quite clear that each church pos- 
sessed no more than a single bishop in each step of 
the succession. 

Such a speculation, even in the abstract, is strayige-- 
ly incredible: but, if we once more advert to the old- 
est extant testimony of Clement, we shall find, that 
it is positively erroneous. Under terms borrowed 
from the law of Moses, Clement distinctly specifies 
the three orders of bishops and presbyters and dea- 
cons. Nor, I think, is it possible to mistake his 
meaning. Though he employs Hebrew terms of no- 
menclature, he is indisputably speaking of the organ- 
ization of the christian church, as it stood in his own 
time while many of the apostles were yet alive. In 
that church, he states the existence, and defines the 
separate duties, of four dijBTerent classes of individuals. 
Each distinct provincial church is described as having 
a single officer, whom in Jewish phraseology he calls 
the high priest^ an indefinite number of inferior offi- 
cers whom he similarly calls priests^ an indefinite 
number of yet lower officers whom he styles Levites, 
and a numerically varying body of unofficial persons 
whom he denominates laics. All these are members 
of one provincial church: and all have their own re- 
spective duties. In Clement's perfectly unambiguous 
words, ^'The chief priest has his proper services: and 
^ to the priests their proper place is appointed: and to 
' the Levites appertain their proper ministrations: and 
' the layman is confined within the bounds of what is 
< commanded to laymen, ^^ Such is Clement's picture 

could thus, in a controversial work, have appealed to an alleged 
notorious fact; if, all the while, every person knew, that this 
alleged notorious tact was a positive falsehood. 



238 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

of a primitive provincial church, as modelled by the 
apostles according to Christ's most holy institution, 
and as actually subsisting in the first century while 
many of the apostles were still alive. 

III. These venerable documents of remote ecclesi- 
astical antiquity, so grievously neglected in this our 
evil day of shallow innovation, at once receive cor- 
roboration from Scripture, and teach us how we ought 
to understand Scripture. 

The twelve apostles, those first bishops and spirit- 
ual foundations of the holy catholic church, were or- 
dained by Christ himself.* But the apostles were 
mortal men. Common sense, therefore, even inde- 
pendently of our Lord's own words, might teach, 
that the apostles were similarly to ordain their succes- 
sors in the canonical government of the church, t Ac- 
cordingly, in exact agreement with Clement's testi- 
mony to the FACT, we find them, in the first instance, 
consecrating Matthias rj and, afterward, as the church 
increased, so soon as diocesan bishops, as described 
by Clement and Irenseus and Tertullian, became ne- 
cessary, we find bishops of this precise character re- 
gularly appointed by apostolic authority. § 

That the Lord should specially ratify and approve 
an institution of his own ordaining, were small won- 
der: yet, as if to prevent those contentions about the 
ministry to which the primitive Clement alludes, and 
which he pronounces the apostles to have foreseen, 
Christ himself, the great high-priest and bishop of the 
universal church, solemnly delivers seven distinct 
charges, each after the manner best adapted to the ne- 
cessity of his particular condition, to those seven indi- 
viduals, who were the bishops of the seven Asiatic 
churches at the time when St. John w^rote the Apo- 
calypse. By thus officially addressing those bishops, 

* Matt, X. xi. 1. Rev. xxi. 14. 

t Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. ± Actsli. 23—26. 

§ 1 Tim. i. 18. iii. l—r. iv. 11—16. v. 1, 17, 21, 22. vi. 11— 
21. 2 Tim. i. 6^14. ii. 2. iv. 1—8. Tit.|i. 5—11. iii. 10. 



POLITY or THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH. 239 

he virtually ratifies their office: for, whatever might 
be their respective ^er^on^/ conduct, such an address 
clearly implies the divine validity of their Junction. 

If the date assigned by Irenseus to the composition 
of the Apocalypse be just, of which I see no sufficient 
reason to doubt; in that case, the angel or messenger 
of the church of Smyrna (for John adopts the phrase- 
ology of the ancient prophets when he speaks of these 
seven primitive bishops*) must apparently have been 
the venerable Polycarp, then newly placed by the 
apostle over that society,! 

Here, then. Scripture corresponds with the tes- 
timony of Clement, that the apostles ordained bishops 
as their successors: while it exactly meets the decla- 
ration of Irenseus, that his master, Polycarp, was ap- 
pointed by John to the see of Smyrna at the latter end 
of the first century. 

I have now produced, in as brief a form as possible, 
my evidence to facts: and 1 know not where we 
can learn primitive order and canonical discipline, if 
we find them not in Scripture, explained by the une- 
quivocally recorded practice of the two first centu- 
ries. 

* See Malach. ii. 7. 

f Neque enim ante multum temporis visum est (sell, oraculum 
Apacalypseos), sed pene sub nostro saeculo, ad finem Domitiani 
imperii. — Iren. adv. Hser, lib. v. c. 25, § 6. 



240 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 



CHAPTER IL 



Respecting the Latin Objections to the Church of 
England in general^ and to the Orders of the 
Chnrch of England in particular. 



Since the polity of the church of England at the 
time of the Reformation was modelled upon the polity 
of the primitive church, as instituted by Christ and 
his inspired apostles, it may appear somewhat extra- 
ordinary, that the bishop of Aire, however he may 
dislike our doctrine, should object to our discipline. 
Yet such is the fact. His lordship commences his 
work with an historical account of the establishment 
of the reformed church of England: and, in that ac- 
count, he objects both to the Anglican church in ge- 
neral, and to the validity of her orders in particular.* 

I. His objection to the church of England in gene- 
ral rests upon the personal character of Henry the 
Eighth, and upon the arbitrary conduct of Elizabeth. 

1. If, as in the case of King Henry the Eighth, 
the Almighty never employed the bad passions of 
men to bring about a beneficial result; if he was never 
known to elicit good out of evil; if no instance could 
be produced of his using an irreligious prince to ad- 
vance his own purposes of mercy or of judgment: 
then perhaps the objection of the bishop of Aire, 
founded upon the personal character of an English 
sovereign, might have some weight. But, as matters 
now stand, I discern not, how the independence and 

* Discuss, Amic. Lett. i. 



OBJECTIONS TO THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 241 

the doctrines of the Anglican church can be at all 
affected by the character of King Henry the Eighth. 

The church of England denies the supremacy of 
the bishop of Rome; and propounds, as the terms of 
her communion, certain doctrines in her thirty-nine 
articles. 

On these points she may be very right, as we think; 
or she may be very wrong, as the bishop of Aire 
thinks: but, let her be right or let her be wrong, it is 
clear that the soundness of her expressed opinions 
depends not, in the slightest degree, upon the personal 
character of King Henry. Had he been the most 
correct prince upon record, his virtues could never 
have made that right which intrinsically is wrong. 
Conversely, therefore, so far at least as I can under- 
stand the principles of accurate reasoning, his vices 
and his violence cannot make that wrong which in- 
trinsically is right 

All that the bishop has said respecting the personal 
character of Henry, seems to me to leave the real 
question at issue wholly untouched. A bad man may 
perform a very good deed from very bad motives. 
In the course of God^s providence, other persons may 
be largely benefited by the goodness of the deed; 
though, by a Being, who regards motives, it may 
never be imputed as a truly religious act to the origi- 
nal performer. We may fairly doubt, whether the 
character of Constantine will bear a severe scrutiny: 
yet it were singular reasoning to impeach, on that 
account, the christian religion. Julian, indeed, argues 
in some such manner: but the bishop of Aire would 
not wish to imitate Julian.* 

2. Much the same remarks are applicable to that 
part of his objection, which rests upon the conduct of 
Elizabeth. 

This great princess, as we all know, was very arbi- 
trary both in church and in state: and she did much 

* Julian. Caesar. Oper. p. oc>o^ 336. 

X 



242 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

which could not be done, and would not be tolerated, 
in the present day. But I see not how the submis- 
sion, which she exacted from her clergy, can aJBTect 
the merits of the present question. If we grant, that 
she exacted, and that they submitted, further than 
was justifiable, still the point cannot be finally and 
legitimately determined by the conduct of mere indi- 
viduals. The true doctrine of the Anglican church, 
on the topic of royal authority, must be obviously 
learned from her own declaration, as set forth, in the 
j'ear 1562, by the archbishops and bishops and clergy 
of both provinces: a declaration, approved and ratified 
by Elizabeth herself, and again confirmed by the uni- 
versal subscription of the whole clerical body in the 
year 1571. 

In what manner, then, does the church of England, 
with the consent of this very Elizabeth, whose arbi- 
trary conduct is made the basis of an objection, express 
her sentiments on the topic now before us ? 

^The king's majesty hath the chief power in this 
realm of England and other his dominions, unto 
whom the chief government of all estates of this 
realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all 
causes doth appertain ; and is not, nor ought to be, sub- 
ject to any foreign jurisdiction. Where we attribute 
\o the king's majesty the chief government, by which 
titles we understand the minds of some slanderous 
folks to be offended; we give not to our princes the 
ministering either of God's word or of the sacra- 
ments, the which thing the injunctions also lately 
get forth by Elizabeth our queen do most plainly tes- 
tify : but that only prerogative, which we see to have 
been given always to all godly princes in Holy Scrip- 
ture by God himself; that is, that they should rule 
all estates and degrees committed to their charge by 
God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, 
and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and 
evil doers. '^ 

* Art. xxxvii. 



OBJECTIONS TO THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 243 

It might be thought, that nothing could be more 
plain and explicit than this solemn and authoritative 
declaration: the bishop, however, contends, that we 
clergy of the Anglican church derive all our spiritual 
powers ultimately from Elizabeth; whence he main- 
tains, that our church is built upon human sanctions 
alone, and that a link is effectually broken in the chain 
which ought to unite us to the apostles. 

From the crown we certainly derive our temporali- 
ties; from the crown also we receive a legal sanction 
to exercise our functions, whether as bishops or as 
presbyters, within the limits of certain regularly- 
defined dioceses or parishes: but I am at a loss to per- 
ceive, how this circumstance either snaps the chain of 
apostolic succession or causes our church to be built 
upon human sanctions alone. For let us suppose, that 
we were deprived of our present legal establishment: 
what would be the consequence ? Should we lose our 
spiritual authority as bishops or as presbyters ? Such, 
I apprehend, would by no means be the result. We 
should simply be brought to the state of our venerable 
clerical brethren of the protestant episcopal churches 
of Scotland and America. What the crown gave, it 
may resume: what the crown did not give, it cannot 
take away. From the apostles we derive our spiri- 
tual power of order: from the crown we derive our 
temporal power of jurisdiction. The continuance 
of the former, in the church general, is independent 
of any mere human ordinance: the continuance of the 
latter, within certain prescribed geographical limits, 
depends upon the law of the land. Doubtless, it may 
please God to remove our candlestick altogether: but 
the spiritual power of our clergy depends neither upon 
our Idng nor upon our parliament. The spiritual 
power of order we assuredly derived not from Eliza- 
beth; hence, of that power no present or future sove- 
reign of England can deprive us.=^ 

* There are some excellent remarks, on this frequently-misun- 
derstood subject, in a speech of tke present bishop of Durham 
before the House of Lords, p. 8 — 13. 



244 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

II. Yet, says the bishop of Aire, we owe every- 
thing in our ecclesiastical constitution to Elizabeth: 
and the chain of apostolic succession is thence of ne- 
cessity broken. 

His lordship, in making such an assertion, forgets 
what he himself has stated respecting the measures 
adopted by this identical Elizabeth. 

In order to prove, that our spiritical power of or- 
der is derived from that great princess, it would, I 
apprehend, have been necessary to shew, that the 
bishops, whom she introduced as fathers into the re- 
formed church of England, were all solemnly conse- 
crated by herself. Could this fact have been ascer- 
tained, the bishop would clearly have gained his point: 
but, in truth, his own statement nullifies his own 
assertions. Elizabeth, conscious that she possessed 
no power of conferring spiritual authority upon any 
man, undertook not the preposterous task of herself 
consecrating the new bishops: on the contrary, as the 
bishop of Aire very truly states the matter, she called 
in, for that purpose, Hoskins, Scory, Barlow, and 
Coverdale; ail of whom, as he allows, had been cano- 
nically consecrated to the episcopate.* 

Now, it is impossible to conceive a stronger prac- 
tical confession on the part of Elizabeth, that the 
church of England derived not from her any spiritual 
authority, than the fact which has been adduced by 
the bishop of Aire himself According to his own 
shewing, the spiritual authority of the Anglican 
church, let it be valid or invalid, was derived, not 
from Elizabeth, but from the four regularly conse- 
crated bishops, Hoskins, Scory, Barlow, and Cover- 
dale. These four ecclesiastics were themselves, con- 
fessedly, in regular episcopal orders: they^ not the 
queen^ consecrated Parker to the metropolitan see of 
Canterbury: and, when this matter had been accom- 

* Barlow was bishop elect of Chichester; Scory, bishop elect 
of Hereford; Coverdale, late bishop of Exeter; and Hoskins, or 
Hodgkins, bishop suffragan of Bedford. 



OBJECTIONS TO THE ENGLISH CHXJIICH. 245 

plished, Parker, as primate, presided at the consecra- 
tion of all the other new bishops."^ 

Thus, according to the bishop's own account, the 
Anglican church derived not an atom of spiritual au- 
thority from Elizabeth: on the contrary, the spiritual 
authority of that church has been confessedly received 
from four prelates, who had themselves already been 
canonically consecrated to the episcopate by other ca- 
nonical bishops, their predecessors. 

In what manner, then, we may well ask, are v/e a 
church of mere human institution? In what manner 
is the chain of succession, which ultimately binds us 
to the apostles, snapped asunder? The bishop of Aire 
objects to the validity of our orders. On what ground 
does he make the objection? 

^ The following is a somewhat more detailed account of the 
whole transaction: and it may serve to show the anxious care 
which was taken by Elizabeth, that the bishops of the reformed 
Anglican church should be regularly consecrated by men who had 
themselves received episcopal consecration. 

The bishops of Durham, Wells, and Peterborough, who hM 
been included in the first warrant under the great seal, refused to 
concur in the consecration of Parker. A new warrant therefore 
was issued, directed to Barlow, bishop elect of Chichester; Scory, 
bishop elect of Hereford; Coverdale, late bishop cf Exeter; 
Hodgkins, bishop suffragan of Bedford; John, bishop suffragan of 
Thetford; Bale, bishop of Ossory, and the bishop of Llandaff^, 
that they, or any four of them, should consecrate him. Accord- 
ingly, on Dec. 9, 1560, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins, 
met at the church of St. Mary-le-bov>^, where the Conge d'elir@, 
and the election, and the roy?J assent to it, were read before 
tliem; witnesses appearing to establish the legahty of the elec- 
tion, and an opportunity being afforded to any person who might 
be disposed to object. This preliminary ceremonial having been 
performed, Parker, on Dec. 17, 1560, was consecrated by the 
four bishops in the chapel at Lambeth, according to the form of 
ordinations made in the time of King Edward. Parker, having 
been thus consecrated to the primacy, joined afterwards in con- 
secrating bishops for the other sees. 

it is evident, that the hinge of the wliole matter entirely turns 
upon the previous episcopal consecration of the four bishops. This 
fact is not denied by the bishop of Aire. Nothing, therefore, can 
invalidate their consecration of Parker, save the loss of their own 
episcopal character. 

%2 



246 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

Hoskins, he tells us, was only a suffragan bishop; 
whose short-lived see of Bedford had been suppress- 
ed, and had never been re-established: Scory, Barlow, 
and Coverdale, had been canonically deposed, in the 
preceding reign of Mary, on the ground that they had 
entered into the holy estate of matrimony: and, even 
if none of these irregularities had existed, still the 
consecration of Parker to the primacy was invalid; 
because neither the patriarch of the West, nor the 
bishops of the province acting by his authority, as re- 
quired by the fourth canon of the first Council of 
Nice, had ordained and confirmed such consecration. 

To complete the bishop's demonstration, that the 
orders of the reformed Anglican church are invalid, 
nothing is wanting, save the establishment of a few, 
perhaps, not unimportant particulars. 

When he sjiall have satisfactorily shewn, that a suf- 
fragan bishop forfeits his episcopal orders upon the 
suppression of his see by royal authority; when he 
shall have clearly demonstrated, that a bishop in Eng- 
land may be lawfully deposed for the alleged crime of 
marriage by the authority of a bishop in Italy; and 
when he shall have fully proved, that a council, which 
sat in the year 325, had a right to make null and 
void the ancient simple mode of the consecration of 
bishops by bishops, and to impose, as a matter of ne- 
cessity, the intervention of a patriarch: then, but not 
until then, the bishop of Aire will have made good his 
position, that the English chain of apostolic succes- 
sion has been snapped asunder in the midst. 



RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 247 



CHAPTER III. 



Respecting the alleged Schism of the Reformed 
Church of England. 



While the bishop of Aire demonstrates, at consi- 
derable length, the excellence and advantages of ec- 
clesiastical unity, he charges the reformed church of 
England with the crime of schism: whence he takes 
occasion to urge a speedy reconciliation with, or ra- 
ther a complete submission to, the church of Rome. * 

The advantages of ecclesiastical unity, where it can 
be conscientiously obtained, I readily admit: nor can 
the Latin bishop of Aire more strenuously deprecate 
causeless schism, than the protestant church of Eng- 
land. But I am not aware, that a perfectly indepen- 
dent national church can be justly charged with 
schism, simply because, deriving her theology from 
the Bible and primitive antiquity, she denies the su- 
premacy of another equally independent national 
church which groundlessly claims to possess the right 
of universal spiritual domination. If, in resistance to 
this pretended right of domination and in the in- 
ternal arrangement of her own private concerns, she 
incur the fierce indignation and fall under the pre- 
sumptuous anathema of the lawlessly usurping church: 
when a separation is thus produced, the guilt of schism 
rests, not with the church which vindicates her own 
just liberties, but with the church which arrogantly 

* Discuss, Amic. Lett, ii. 



248 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

seeks to invade them, and which makes absohite sub- 
mission the price of christian communion. At least, 
the invading church cannot legitimately tax the inva- 
ded church with schism, because she resolutely main- 
tains her own independence; until it shall have been 
satisfactorily shown, that the invading church pos- 
sesses a divine right of spiritual domination. 

The ground on which a case of schism is made out 
by the invading church of Rome against the invaded 
church of England may be stated, I believe, in man- 
ner following: — 

^ St. Peter as the primate of the apostolic college, 
^ and the line of the Roman bishops, his successors in 

* place and prerogative, constitute the divinely-ap- 

* pointed head of the catholic church and the divinely- 
^ appointed centre of ecclesiastical unity. Such being 
^ the indisputable fact, those national churches, which 
^are in submissive comm.union with the see of Rome, 
^are sound branches of the church catholic: while 
^ those national churches, which are not in submissive 
^ communion with the see of Rome, though collec- 
' tively they may count up as many, or possibly even 

* more, members than the national churches different- 

< ly circumstanced, are cut off ipso f ado from the only 

< genuine catholic church; and must thence be viewed, 

< as existing in a state of unhallowed schism or heresy, 
^ or both. Now, in this condition, the national church 
^ of England has undeniably placed herself. There- 

< fore, the national church of England, even to speak 

< the most gently of her, is clearly in a state of schism 
^from the only genuine church catholic,^* 

* Quod Romana Ecclesia a solo Domino sit fundata: quod solus 
Romanus Pontifex jure dictatur Universalis: quodille solus possit 
deponere episcopos vel reconciliare : quod legatus ejus omnibus 
episcopis prsesit in concilio, etiam inferioris gradus, et adversus 
eos sententiam depositionis possit dare: quod absentes possit 
Papa deponere: quod cum excommunicatis ab illo, inter caetera^ 
nee in eadem domo deb emus manere: quod illi liceat imperatores 
deponere : quod nulla synodus absque praecepto ejus debet gene- 



RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 249 

The basis of this favourite Latin argument is the 
alleged fact, that ^ St. Peter as the primate of the apos- 
*to]ic college, and the line of the Roman bishops his 
^ successors in place and prerogative, constitute the 
^ divinely-appointed head of the catholic church and 
* the divinely-appointed centre of ecclesiastical unity.' 

Let that alleged fact, then, be substantiated; and 
the argument, I readily admit, will be conclusive: but 
let it fail of being substantiated; and the argument, 
which altogether rests upon it, will doubtless be incon- 
clusive. Hence our sole business is, to look to the 
basis of the argument. 

I. Since the basis of the argument is a declared 
HISTORICAL FACT, we must obviously try and examine 
it as we would do any other fact in history. 

Now, in the sacred inspired volume, we have a 
detailed narrative of the early actions of the apostles 
subsequent tQ the ascension of their divine Lord and 
Master: and, appended to this narrative?, w^ haV6 Se- 
veral epistolary documents, which throw a very con- 
siderable degree of light upon those primitive matters. 

Hence it is natural and reasonable, in the first in- 
stance, to examine these ancient historical records; in 
order that we may so determine, simply as a point of 
PACT, whether they do, or do not, establish the basis 
of our argument. 

1. We must begin, then, with inquiring, whether 
any special primacy seems, in practicejio have been 
dutifully and religiously conceded to St. Peter by the 
other inferior members of the apostolic college. 

rails vocari: quod sententia illius a nullo debeat retractari, et ipse 
omnium solus retractare possit: quod a nemine ipse judicari de- 
beat: quod Romana Ecclesia nunquam eri'avit, nee in perpetuum, 
testante Scnptura, errabit: quod Romanus Pontifex, si canonice 
fuerit ordinatus, meritis beati Petri indubitanter efficitur sanctus: 
quod illius prsecepto et licentla subjectis liceat accusare: quod 
absque synodati conventu possit episcopos deponere et reconci- 
liare: quod catholicus non habeatur qui non concordat Romanae 
Ecclesise: quod a fidelitate iniquorum subjectos potest absolvere, 
Dictat. Papse Gregor. sept, in Epist. lib. ii. epist. 55* Labb, Con=' 
cil. Sacros. vol. x. p. 110, 111, 



^50 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

It will, of course, be understood, that I speak not 
of mere communion. The inquiry before us respects, 
not mere communion^ but authoritative primacy. 
Doubtless, the inspired apostles were in full com- 
munion with each other; but this is not the present 
question: the present question is, ' whether they were 

* in communion as the equal delegates of their com- 

* mon divine superior, the great universal shepherd 
*and bishop of souls; or whether they were in com- 

* munion as suffragans, dependent upon and canoni- 
^cally obedient to their* divinely-appointed and con- 

* scientiously acknowledged primate St. Peter/ 

Now, so far as I can read and understand the his- 
torical documents before us, we have ample proof of 
the former fact, but we have no adequate proof of the 
latter fact: and it will be recollected, that our inquiry 
regards an alleged naked fact only. 

(1.) Shortly after the ascension, we find St. Peter 
apparently taking the lead in the important business 
of appointing a successor to the miserable Judas. He 
acts at least as a sort of prolocutor; and, in so far, he 
might seem to have some kind of pre-eminence: but, 
as we advance in the narrative, the phantom of an 
absolute primacy flits away from our grasp and van- 
ishes into impalpable ether. 

Had Peter been the divinely-appointed vicar of 
Christ upon earth; he, no doubt, acting as the Lord^s 
special representative, would have appointed, by his 
own exclusive sovereign authority, the new suffragan 
apostle: for, in regard to such elevated rank, it were 
plainly inconsistent to come to any other conclusion. 
But, in point of fact, we do not find, that this was the 
case. They, not he, appointed two candidates for 
the vacant office: and when that preliminary step had 
been collectively taken, most probably by the votes of 
the majority, the matter was referred, by lot, to the 
supreme head of the church himself. =^ 

* Acts i, 13—26, 



RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 251 

From these recorded circumstances I infer, that the 
prolocution of the zealous and warm-hearted Peter 
was rather incidental than official. 

(2.) The next time that we hear of Peter is on the 
day of Pentecost. All the apostles equally speaking 
with tongues, the strangers in Jerusalem are not a 
little amazed. Whereupon Peter, standing up with 
the eleven, explains to them the fact and nature and 
object of the miracle. 

Now the substance of the speech, ascribed by name 
to Peter, must certainly, both from the turn of the 
expression and from the necessity of the narrative, 
have been alike delivered by all the apostles. Had 
Peter alo7ie spoken in a single particular tongue, a 
small part only of the multitude would have under- 
stood him. Doubtless, therefore, the same matters 
were delivered by the other apostles in other tongues 
to other divisions of the multitude: and, accordingly, 
we read, not that Peter stood up solely ^ but that he 
stood w"^ jointly with the eleven; not that the multi- 
tude in return addressed Peter exclusively ^ but that 
they spake unto Peter and unto the rest of the apos- 
tlas."^ 

(3.) Soon after this transaction, we find St. Peter, 
not acting the primate, but submitting with St. John 
to the collective authority of the apostolic college. 

^ When the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard 
^ that Samaria had received the word of God, they 
^ sent unto them Peter and John.^t 

It is easy to conceive that Christ's vicar might send 
two of his dependant suffragans, in the quality of his 
legates, upon an ecclesiastical errand: but it is very 
difficult to explain, how the dependant suffragans took 
upon themselves to send Christ's vicar and their own 
lawful primate upon the business of the church. This 
circumstance alone, I fear, will greatly endanger the 
basis of our argument. 

* Acts ii. 1—37. t Ibid. viii. 14. 



252 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

(4.) In course of time, the Gentiles, no less than 
the Jews, received the word of God from the honoured 
hand of Peter. But this circumstance displeased those 
of the circumcision: and they forthwith proceeded to 
contend with their primate. Yet that high officer, 
most unaccountably, did not silence them by the di- 
vine authority of his vicariate. So far from it, he 
was content to vindicate himself on the very sufficient 
score, that it was not for him to withstand God. 
Satisfied by this rational process, the gainsayers held 
their peace and glorified the Lord: it is evident, how- 
ever, that they submitted, not to Peter's primatic 
mandate, but to the very ample reason which he gave 
for his conduct.* 

(5.) We next have an account of what is usually 
called the first Council at Jerusalem. 

In this assembly, after much previous disputation, 
Peter is said to have risen up and spoken. He was 
followed by Barnabas and Paul. And the business 
was finally closed by James: who, apparently as the 
president of Ihe synod, gave his ultimate sentence. 
Barsabas and Silas were then sent to Antioch with 
Paul and Barnabas, not however by Peter in his sup- 
posed capacity of primate, but by the apostles and 
elders in conjunction -with the whole church; Peter 
himself not being even so much as once mentioned in 
the decretal letter, which runs in the general name of 
the apostles and presbyters and brethren.! 

From such a narrative if we could collect anything 
specific, it would be, that James, not Peter, was the 
primate of the apostolic college: but, in truth, we learn 
nothing as to the primacy of either. James seems 
to have presided on the occasion: but, if that were the 
case, he was a mere temporary president. The de- 
cree of the council avowedly rests on the general col- 
lective authority of the apostles and presbyters, acting 
in harmonious conjunction with the whole church. 

* Acts xi. 1—18. f Ibid. xv. 4—31. 



RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 253 

Neither Peter, nor Peter's legate, ruled the assembly : 
nor do the concurrence and sanction of Peter seem 
to have been at all more necessary than the concur- 
rence and sanction of any other apostle, in order to 
make the decree of the council valid and canonical. 
This primitive council, in short, furnishes no warrant 
for any of those arbitrary and fanciful rules, by which 
the church of Rome, in the midst of jarring synods, 
vainly attempts to preserve a shadow of chimerical 
infallibility. 

{€,) After this, in the volume of the Acts, we hear 
much of Paul, but nothing of Peter. The imaginary 
primate disappears from the historic stage altogether. 
Not once more is he mentioned to the very end of 
the book. Paul evidently labours in perfect indepen- 
dence of him and without the slightest reference to 
his supposed authority. In equal communion indeed, 
and in christian amity, these two great apostles no 
doubt lived: but, as for any primacy in the church, 
Paul was no more subject to Peter, than Peter to 
Paul. Not a hint on the topic is dropped in any 
part of the history: nor is Peter throughout his two 
epistles, or Paul throughout his fourteen epistles, at 
all more communicative. The tone of Peter's epistles 
argues no superiority over his apostolic brethren: and 
the almost only epistle of Paul, wherein Peter is men- 
tioned, is fatal to the notion of a primacy. Paul care- 
fully, and (as it were) jealously, intimates, that he 
derived his authority neither from Peter nor from 
James nor from any other of the apostles, but by re- 
velation of Jesus Christ alone: and, agreeably to this 
claim of perfect independence, when he met Peter at 
Antioch, he loithsiood him^ as he assured the Gala- 
tians, to hisface^ because he was to be blamed,^ 

(7.) Equally silent on the subject of that primacy, 
which the Latins so greatly extol, are the epistles of 
James and John and Jude: nor do we find the least 

* Galat. i. 11—24. ii. 1 16. 

Y 



254: DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

degree of light thrown on the topic in any part of the 
Apocalypse. 

Now, if the doctrine had been so essential as the 
Romanists contend, how are we to account, not only 
for this extraordinary total preterition, but (what is 
yet more remarkable) for the absolutely incompatible 
language of St. Paul } If the theory of the Latin 
church be valid, if canonical submission to St. Peter 
and his alleged successors in the see of Rome be abso- 
lutely necessary to ecclesiastical unity; I perceive not, 
how we can exempt from the charge of schism even 
the great apostle of the gentiles himself. 

2. Since then, in the apostolic practice and writ- 
ings, we can discover no vestiges of the primacy of 
St. Peter, we shall not be very sanguine in our hopes 
of detecting any recognition of the primacy of St. 
Peter^s alleged successors. 

The documents, which w^e are the most naturally 
led to examine for this purpose, are the two Epistles 
of St. Peter, and St. PauPs Epistle to the Romanf. 
I need scarcely point out the reason. St. Peter, one 
might well imagine, when writing two general epis- 
tles, would not fail to urge upon his readers, where- 
soever scattered, the great and religious importance 
of acknowledging, as a divinelj^-appointed centre of 
unity, both his own primacy and that of his Roman 
successors. Such an admonition would the more na- 
turally flow from his pen, since he has been thought 
to have written at least his first epistle from Rome.^ 
Be that however as it may, if the doctrine be so 
vitally important as the Latins assert, we can hardly 
suppose that Peter would have been altogether silent 
on the subject. Yet silent he is, though not unpro- 
fitablj^ His silence speaks volumes. Much the same 
remark applies to St. PauPs Epistle to the Romans. 

* 1 Peter v. 13. There is no reason to suppose, that Peter 
ever resided in the literal Babylon. Hence the figurative Baby- 
lon, whence he dates his letter, has been thought not unreasona- 
bly to be Rome. See Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. ii. c. 15. 



RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 255 

That letter is by no means a short one. The apostle 
treats largely in it both of doctrine and of practice. 
Yet, in no one part of it, does he give the slightest 
hint as to either the existence or necessity of any pri- 
macy in the church of Rome. This, I think, could 
scarcely have happened, more especially when we re- 
collect that the epistle was destined for im.mortality, 
had St. Paul symbolized with the Latin doctors. 

In fact, if St. Peter and his alleged Roman succes- 
sors had been the divinely-appointed primates of the 
catholic church, we shall encounter, even at the very 
first descent of the office, a most singular chronologi- 
cal difficulty. According to Irena^us, the church of 
Rome was jointly founded by the two most glorious 
apostles Peter and Paul: and the bishop, w^hom they 
appomted in the first instance, was Linus.^ Now 
Peter certainly died before John, and probably before 
several other of the apostles. Such being the case, 
a most extraordinary inversion of all ecclesiastical 
order must, according to the Latin theory, have in- 
evitably followed. If Peter himself were the first 
primate, and if his primacy was ordained to descend 
to his alleged Roman successors; then, upon the death 
of Peter, the existing bishop of Rome, whoever that 
bishop might be at the death of Peter, w^ould become 
the canonical primate of the entire catholic church. St. 
John,however,wasundoubtedly alive when Peter died. 
Hence, as John had been a sufiragan of the primate 
Peter, he would plainly, on the death of Peter, be- 
become a sufiragan of the new Roman primate who 
was Peter^s legitimate successor in the primacy: and 
thus, at length, we shall be brought to the goodly 
conclusion, that an inspired apostle of the Lord owed 
canonical obedience to an uninspired bishop of Rome. 

II. Upon what then, it w^ill naturally be asked by 
the English laic, who (as w^e learn from the bishop of 
Aire) has fallen into the sickly humour of being dis- 

* Iren, adv. Haer. lib. iii, c. 3. § 2, 



256 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

contented with his own church: upon what then 
rests the claim of Rome to the primacy of the church 
catholic ? 

It rests, let the English laic know, upon the follow- 
ing passage in the gospel according to St. Matthew: — 

^ When Jesus came into the coasts of Csesarea Phi- 
Mippi, he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men 
^say that I, the son of man, am ? And they said: 
^Some say, that thou art John the Baptist; some, 
'Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the prophets. 
^ He saith unto them: But whom say ye that I am ? 

< And Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art the 
^ Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus an- 
^swered and said unto him: Blessed art thou, Simon 
^Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it 
^ unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And 
^ I say also unto thee,- that Thou art Peter: and upon 
Uhis rock I will build my church; and the gates of 
^ hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give 
^ unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and, 
^ whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound 

< in heaven; and, whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, 
^ shall be loosed in heaven.^* 

The process of inductive reasoning, by which the 
supremacy of the see of Rome is extracted from the 
present passage, maybe stated in manner following: — 

^ Christ declares Peter to be the rock, upon which 
' he would build his church: and he communicates 

* also to him the power both of binding and of loosing. 
' Now, in this figurative but perfectly intelligible lan- 
' gnage, Christ grants to Peter the primacy of the uni- 
' versal church, and constitutes him the centre of 

* ecclesiastical unity. But Peter was a mortal man: 
^and the office of primate, having been divinely ap- 
^ pointed as the preservative of ecclesiastical unity, 
^ was destined to be perpetual. Hence, as the office 
' could not die with Peter, it must clearly descend to 
^Peter^s successors. Who, then, are the canonical 

* Matth. xvi. 13—19. 



RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 257 

'f successors of Peter? Undoubtedly, they are the 
^bishops of Rome. For, since Peter was the first 
' bishop of Rome, all succeeding bishops of Rome are 
^his canonical successors: and, since they are his 
* canonical successors in the bishopric, they only can 
^ be his canonical successors in the primacy. Whence 
•it follows, that those who are not built upon the rock 
•^ Peter, or (in other words) those w^ho render not 
^ canonical obedience to the supreme universal pri- 
' mate, are manifest schismatics and convicted aliens 
^from the catholic church of Christ.^ 

It is evident, that the whole of the present argu- 
ment rests ultimately upon the two following posi- 
tions: that ^Peter was the first bishop *of Rome;' 
and that ^Christ, by declaring Peter to be the rock 
^ upon which he would build his entire church, con- 
' ferred upon that apostle and his successors in the see 
^ of Rome the divine vi9^ of an universally-control- 
Ming primacy.^ 

Such then being the case, before we admit the con- 
clusiveness of the argument, we^must carefully exam- 
ine, whether the two main positions, upon which it 
rests, be themselves tenable. 

1. Whatever may be the precise nature of the grant 
made by our Lord to Peter, it is clear that the bishops 
of Rome can propound no valid claim to the inheri- 
tance of that grant, unless they can establish the alleg- 
ed historical fact, that Mey are the canonical succes- 
sors of Peter. But the medium, through which they 
would establish this alleged historical fact, is the cir- 
cumstance, that Peter ivas the first bishop of Rome. 
Therefore, the circumstance, that Peter was the first 
bishop of Eome, is the point to be proved by them. 

Now the position, that Peter was the first bishop 
of Rome^ rests not even upon the shadow of a foun- 
dation. 

All that we know, respecting the early history of 
the Roman see, is derived ultimately from Irena^ug, 
who flourished in the second century: for Eusebius 

Y 2 



258 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

professedly gives the whole of his statement on the 
authority of Irenaeus.^ 

Does Irenseus then inform us, that Peter was the 
first bishop of Rome, and that he handed down his 
divine prerogative (whatever it might be) to his suc- 
cessors in that paramount diocese ? 

Certainly we receive no such information from that 
ancient father: and, if we receive it not from him, I 
know not from what other authentic source we can 
learn it. 

According to Irenseus, the two most glorious apos- 
tles, Peter and Paul, were the co-founders of the 
church of Rome: and he informs us, that, when they 
had thus jointly founded that church, they jointly 
delivered the episcopate of it to Linus. With respect 
to eiihe?' of the two co-founders ever having been 
himself bishop of Rome, Irenoeus is totally silent. 
He simply states, that Peter and Paul, by their joint 
authority, founded the church of Rome: and he adds, 
that, when they had so founded it, they forthwith, 
still by their joint authority, delivered the episcopate 
of it to Linus.t 

Such is the narrative of Irenseus: and I see not 
%vhat we can learn from it, save that Linus was the 
first bishop of Rome^ and consequently that neither 
of the two co-founders of that church ever presided 
over it in the capacity of a diocesan bishop. 

To this conclusion we are, in fact, irresistibly dri- 
ven, both by the general argument, and by the par- 
ticular statement, of Irenseus. 

His general argument is, that ^ the tradition of the 
^ apostles must exist in all the apostolic churches; be- 
^ cause each church possessed an accurate list of her 

* See Euseb. Hist. Eccles. lib. iil. c. 2. 4. lib. v. c. 5, 6. See 
also a note by Cotelerius on Constit. Apost. lib. vii. c. 46. j 

f Fundantes igitur et instruentes beati apostoli (Petrus et Pau- 
lus) ecclesiam (Romanam), Lino episcopatum administrandae 
ecclesiae tradiderunt. — Succedit autem ei Anacletus. Post euin, 
tertlo loco ab apostolis, episcopatum sortitur Clemens. Iren. adr. 
Haer. lib. iii. c. 3. § 2, 



RESPECTING THE RErORMED CHURCH. 259 

^bishops, beginning with him to whom the episco- 
* pate had been originally committed by the apostles 
< themselves.^ 

His particular statement is ^ the episcopal succes- 
^ sion of the Roman church, which he gives as an 
^avowed specimen of all other episcopal successions.' 

If then the first bishop of each apostolic church was 
the person, to whom in ih^Jirst instance the aposto- 
lic founder of that church committed the episcopate of 
it; Linus, being the person to whom in the first in- 
stance the two apostolic founders of the Roman church 
committed the episcopate of that church, must clearly 
have been the^r^^ bishop of Rome. 

Accordingly, the catalogue of the Roman bishops, 
as given by Irenseus, is plainly constructed upon this 
identical principle. 

He begins with specifying the two co-founders of 
the church,. Peter and Paul: and, when that has been 
done, he gives a list of twelve successive bishops 
down to his own time; the frst of whom, Linus, he 
describes as having received the episcopate from the 
hands of the two apostolic co-founders themselves. 

Nor is this the only difficulty which impedes the 
Latin speculation, that Peter was the first bishop of 
Rome. Had Peter been the sole founder of that church, 
a plea, though a very weak plea, might have been set 
up, that he w^as also its first bishop. But, in truth, 
Peter and Paul were the J oi?it founders of the Roman 
church: whence it is evident, that Peter does not 
stand alone in the degree immediately before Linus, 
but that Peter and Paul stand jointly in that degree. 
No plea, therefore, can be advanced for the primary 
Roman episcopate of Peter j which may not be equally 
advanced for the primary Roman episcopate of Paul.* 

* It is worthy of note, that, in the Apostolic Constitutions, the 
person who appointed Linus the first bishop of Rome, is said to 
have been St. Paul. Constit. Apost. lib. vii. c. 46. This state- 
ment, though it varies from the more full account given by Ire- 
n^eus, yet does not absolutely contradict it. For, if Linus were 



260 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISlVf. 

Under such circumstances, it is perfectly clear, ac- 
cording both to the general argument and to the 
particular statement of Irenaeus, that the bishops of 
Rome are no more, in any peculiar and exclusive 
sense, the successors of Peter, than the bishop of any 
other ancient church in the founding of which Peter 
was similarl}^ concerned. The bishops of any church, 
founded by Peter, may, in a general sense, be called 
the successors of Peter ; but, why the bishops of 
Rome, more than the bishops of any other church 
similarly circumstanced, should claim to be specially 
and exclusively the successors of Peter, we most as- 
suredly receive no information from Irenseus. 

Thus untenable is one of the main positions, upon 
which is built the papal claim to an universal control- 
ling supremacy. 

Even if our Lord had intended to constitute Peter 
the ruling primate of the apostolic colLege and the 
alone centre of ecclesiastical unity, still his supposed 
high prerogative would not descend to the line of the 
Roman bishops, more than to the line of any other 
bishops, unless the Roman bishops can demonstrate 
themselves to be his special and exclusive successors 
in the primacy. 

appointed the first bishop of Rome by Paul and Peter, he was 
doubtless so appointed by the authority of Paul; thoug-h Paul, 
in transacting the business, did not act singly hMt jointly. Yet 
the circumstance is remarkable: for since the name of Peteii 
could be luliolly omitted m. an account of the foundation of the Ro- 
man church, and since the consecration of Linus could have been 
nakedly ascribed to another person; such a circumstance clearly 
shews, how little stress could have been laid in the early ages 
upon the imagined primacy of Peter and his alleged Roman suc- 
cessors. On the supposition, that the Roman church was jointly 
founded hy Peter and Paul, and on the additional supposition, 
that the sentiments of the early ages respecting the primacy ofF^i^u 
corresponded ivith the sentiments of the modern Latins, it is evident, 
that, in common parlance, though Linus would often be said to 
have been simply appointed by Peter, he would never be said to 
have been simply appointed by Paul. The language of the . 
Apostolic Constitutions would never, 1 apprehend, be adopted by 
a zealous Latin of tlie present day. 



RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 261 

2, As the bishops of Rome are, in no eminent or 
peculiar sense, the successors of St. Peter: so antiquity 
recognised nothing of the claim to a dominant su- 
premacy, preferred by the present pontiffs and their 
adherents, on the strength of our Lord^s declaration, 
that he would found his church upon a rock, and 
would give to Peter the power of the keys. 

To say nothing respecting the fact, that all the 
twelve apostles are equally declared to be foundations 
of the church, and that the power of binding and 
loosing is equally conferred upon the whole collective 
body;^ to say nothing respecting this important fact, 
the passage now before us is abstractedly capable of 
no less than three interpretations. 

The rock, spoken of by Christ, may either be Peter 
individually or it may be Peter and his successors col-* 
lectivelyj wherever those successors are to be found: 
or it may be the open confession of our Lord'^s divini" 
ty, which had just been made by Peter, and which in 
effect was the precise matter that led to Christ's re- 
markable declaration. 

So far as the bare phraseology of the passage is 
concerned, auT/ one of these three expositions is per- 
fectly tenable. The church of Rome, therefore, can- 
not be allowed to build a most important doctrine 
upon her own mere arbitrary and interested interpre- 
tation of an ambiguous passage. 

With whatever degree of reason, the bishop of 
Aire claims the early ecclesiastical writers, as his spe- 
cial friends and allies. To these writers, then, as 
unexceptionable umpires, let the matter now under 
litigation be referred. 

I have stated, that, so far as Tnere phraseology is 
concerned, the passage is capable of three interpreta- 
tions. Now, it is a curious circumstance, that not 
one of the early ecclesiastical writers, so far as I have 
had an opportunity of examining them, adopts the in- 

* See Rev. xxi. 14. John xx. 23. 



2S2 BIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM. 

terpretation preferred by the modern Latins. The 
mos^ early fathers suspiciously pass the text over in 
total silence; and, when at length it begins to be pro* 
duced, some pronounce the rock to be the individual 
Peter; others declare, that it can only be Christ him- 
self or (what amounts to the same thing) Peter^s con- 
fession of Christ^s divinity; 7ioney so far as I know, 
distinctly and uniformly declare it to be Peter and his 
alleged Roman successors conjointly.* 

Clement and Ignatius and Polycarp never once 
mention the passage: and, although their treatment of 
a common subject, particularly when that subject is 
in the hands of the Roman Clement, might well lead 
to a distinct statement, that the bishop of Rome is the 
centre of ecclesiastical unity and the divinely appoint- 
ed primate of the entire catholic church; not a single 
\vord do they say respecting (if we may believe the 
Latins) this vitally important doctrine.t 

* If there be any semblance of exception to this statement, it 
is afforded by Jerome, who flourished at the latter end of the 
fourth century. The language in one of his epistles to Pope 
Damasus, is so worded, that it maybe understood, either as iden- 
tifying the rock with the see of Kome viewed under the aspect 
of the special see of St. Peter, or as identifying the rock with 
Christ, the alone primate of the church catholic. 

Ego, nullum primum nisi Christum sequens, beatitudini tux, 
id est cathedrae Petri, communione consocior. Super illam pe- 
tram xdificatam Ecclesiam scio. — Hieron. Epist. Ivii. ad Damas. 
Oper. vol. i. p. 163. 

In this ambiguous passage, the question is, whether Jerome 
meant to refer illam petrain to nullum primum, nisi Christum or 
to cathedrse Petri. The Romanist will of course maintain the lat- 
ter: and doubtless he might do it with much plausibility, had not 
Jerome elsewhere distinctly pronounced the rock to be Christ. 

Sicut ipse lumen apostolis dona\'it, ut lumen mundi appella- 
rentur; cxteraque ex Domino sortiti sunt vocabula: ita et Si- 
moni, qui credebat inpetram Christum, Petri largitus est nomen. 
— Hieron. Comment, in Matt. xvi. 18. lib. iii. Oper. vol. vi. 
p. 33. 

The interpretation of Jerome in this last passage will carry the 
greater weight, because it occurs in a professed commentary upon 
the text itself. Hence it may be doubted, whether that father 
ever meant to affirm, that the rock was the see of Rome. 

f Clement of Rome wrote to the Corinthians to settle their 



' RESPECTINa THE REFORMED CHURCH. 263 

Justin, viho flourished during the middle part of 
the second century, is, if I mistake not, the earliest 
ancient who cites and explains the text. But how 
does he explain it? Does he favour the modern in- 
terpretation of the ^church of Rome: or does he view 
the passage under a totally different aspect? Truly 
he makes the rock to be, neither Peter himself exclu- 
sively, nor Peter in conjunction with his imaginary 
Roman successors: on the contrary, this primitive 
expositor supposes the rock to be Peter's confession. 
^ Christ,^ says he, ^bestowed upon Simon the name 
^ of Peter: because, by the revelation of his hea- 

dlfferences: but this he did, as he himself informs us, purely at 
their own desire, and not by virtue of any divine universal pre- 
eminent authority attached to his see. — Clem. Kom. Epist. ad Co- 
rinth, i. § -1. Such authority Clement no where vindicates to the 
church of Rome: and, in a passag-e where he must have men- 
tioned it bad he supposed himself to possess it, we find him no 
less silent than Peter and Paul had been before him. Under the 
Israelitish names of High Priest and Priests and Levites ^ he dis- 
tinctly specifies the three holy orders of bishops and presb3^ters 
and deacons, and he teaches us, how the apostles regulated and 
provided for the spiritual government of the church, previous to 
their own removal to glory. — Ibid. § 40-44. But, though his sub- 
ject thus plainly and (as it were) inevitably led him to the grand 
arrangement of the authoritative primacy in his own see of Rome, 
he passes on to other topics without saying anything on the sub- 
ject. 

The same remark applies to those writings of Ignatius of Anti- 
och, which in the main are received as g-enuine. He dwells much 
and repeatedly on the canonical government of the church by the 
three orders of bishops and presbyters and deacons; and he is very 
copious on the evil of schism. But, though he thus treats spe- 
cifically of ecclesiastical polity, and though he often alludes to 
his journey to Rome for the crown of martyrdoni, he throws not 
out the slightest hint of the existence of any Roman primacy.—- 
Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes. § 2, 5, 6, 20. Epist. ad Mag*nes. § 3, 6. 
Epist. ad Trail. § 2, 3, 7. 

Equally silent is Polycarp of Smyrna. In his epistle to the 
Philippians, he touches on the subject of ecclesiastical discipline: 
but, as for the duty of ultimate submission to, or special commu- 
nion with, the alleg-ed Roman successors of Peter, he gives us no 
Information. — Polycarp. Epist. ad Phifip. § 5. 



264 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

^venly father, he confessed him to be the son of 
^ God/* 

Such is the oldest extant interpretation of the pas- 
sage: but as we descend, we shall find, that some of 
the fathers suppose the individual Peter to have been 
the rock, while others adopt the more OvUcient inter- 
pretation of Justin Martyr. 

Irenseus cites the text: but he merely cites it, with- 
out giving any exposition of it, either one way or 
another, t 

* Jastin. Dial, cum Trypli. p. 255. Sylburg. 1593. 

f Iren. adv. Hser. lib. iii. c. 11. This eminent person has been 
claimed as a stout advocate for the primacy of Rome: and, though 
he does not seem to have discovered any such doctrine in the 
text which speaks of the rock, he certainly allows the church of 
that city some metropolitan superiority at least in Italy. But his 
language, I think, cannot be legitimately construed, as setting 
forth the religious necessity of an universal agreement with, and 
submission to, the see of Rome. The Latins, I am aware, so in- 
terpret it: but they bring out their interpretation, partly by an 
arbitrary rendering of one particular word, and partly by an 
omission of the holy father's own exposition of his own meaning. 

* To the Roman church,^ says Irenseus, ' on account of its more 

* potent principality, it is necessary that every church should re- 

* sort; that is to say, those of the faithful who dwell on every 

* side of it. For in it, by those who are on every side of it, is 

* thus preserved the tradition which hath descended from the 

* apostles. '—Iren. adv. Haer. lib. iii. c. 3. § 2. 

The latter or explanatory part of this passage the Latins are 
wont to omit in their citation of it: and the former part they are 
accustomed to translate as follows. 

* With the Roman church, on account of its more potent princi- 

* pality, it is necessary that every church should agree.' 

I subjoin the entire original, in order that the reader may thus 
be enabled to form his own judgment. 

* Ad banc ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, 

* necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam; hoc est, eos qui sunt 

* undique fideles: in qua semper, ab his qui sunt undique, con- 

* servata est ea quae ab apostolis traditio.' — Iren. adv. Haer. lib. 
iii. c. S.§3. 

Irenseus is not inculcating the necessity of an universal submis- 
sive agreement with the church of Rome : but he is teaching the 
best mode of ascertaining the truth, to which the immediately cir- 
cumjacent inferior churches could, in his time, resort. At Rome 
was preserved the authentic autograph of St, Paul's epistle to 



RESPECTING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 261 

Tertullian and Cyprian contend, that Peter indivi* 
dually is the rock: and, while Tertullian is very warm 
and violent against any extension of the privilege be- 
yond the individual Peter; Cyprian^s friend and cor- 
respondent Firmilian sneers at Stephen of Rome for 
idly claiming to be the successor of Peter, sets him 
down as a second Judas, and calls him an arrogant 
and presumptuous and manifest and notorious fool.^ 

that church; probably also the autograph of at least the first epis 
tie of St. Peter. In the days of Iren?eus, moreover, the apostolic 
traditioir, which he himself derived from St. John through his 
master Polycarp, woidd be peculiarly exact and vigorous in a 
church, founded, as he tells us, by the two most glorious apostles 
Peter and Paul. On the satisfactory ground, then, of the more 
potent principahty of a church thus circumstanced, Irenaeus re- 
commends it to the circumjacent inferior churches, that, in the 
case of any doctrinal difficulty, they should resort to Rome, partly 
to inspect the venerable autographs of the apostles, should the 
strict accuracy of their own copies be suspected, and partly to 
learn the system of the gospel as it was well known to have been 
explained by the apostles themselves. 

On this topic a flood of light is thrown by Tertullian, the par- 
tial contemporary of Irenaeus. He mentions, that in all the great 
apostohc churches were preserved the authentic letters of the 
apostles which had been addressed to them: and he thence takes 
occasion to advise the very practice, which the occidental Irenasus 
specially recommends to those of the faithful who were in the 
vicinity of the "Roman church. But Tertullian dreams not of any 
peculiar resort to Rome alone. On the contrary, let those ivho 
are near Corinth, go to Corinth; those, who are Tiear Philippi, 
go to Philippi; those who are near Ephesus, go to Ephesus:, 
those who are near Rome, go to Rome; and those who are near 
Thessalonica, go to Thessalonica. In each of these principal 
churches, where the apostohc autographs are lodged, and 
where the pure apostohc tradition eminently flourishes, those, 
who are in difficulties, may best seek genuine information. — See 
Tertull. de Pr^escript. adv. Hxr. § xiv. p. 108, 109. 

* In the time of Tertullian, w^hose life extended into the third 
century, a considerable advance had* plainly been made by the 
see of Rome in the claim of the primacy. TertuUian calls the 
bishop of that church the supreme pontiff , and dignifies liim with 
the authoritative appellation of the bishop of bishops. — Tertull.de 
Pudic. p. 742. Yet, though a style, ahke unknown to the apos- 
tolic college and to the earhest fathers, had now begun to be 
adopted, Tertullian derives no argument in its fa\ our from the 

z 



262 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM. 

Chrysostom, in one place, supposes Peter indi- 
vidually to have been the rock: but, what very cu- 
riously shews the great uncertainty which prevailed 
in the early church relative to the true meaning of 
this famous text, in another place, he pronounces the 
rock to be Peter's confession of faith, and explicitly 
condemns the idea that Peter himself could have been 
intended.! 

Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Jerome, and Au- 
gustine, all agree in preferring the old interpretation 
which was first given by Justin Martyr. ' The 
' church,' says the great Augustine, ^ is founded upon 
'■arock: whence Peter derived his name. For the 
M'ock was not so called from Peter; but Peter, from 
' the rock: just as Christ is not so called from a chris- 
'tian; but a christian from Christ. Accordingly, the 
' reason why our Lord said, Upon this rock I will 
' build my church, was, becaUw«Je Peter had said, 
' Thou art the Christ the son of the living God. Upon 
' this rock which thou hast confessed, he means to 
*say, I will build my church. For the rock was 
' Christ, upon which foundation Peter himself was 

text now under discussion. He supposes the rock to mean Pe- 
ter: but he carefully restricts the character to Peter as an indi- 
vldual; he deems the privilege to be altogether joer^OTia/,- and he 
flatly denies, that it can be construed as belonging to what then 
began to be esteemed Peter's church, — Tertull. de Pudic. p. 
767, 768. 

For the opinion of Cyprian and his friend Firmilian, see Cy- 
prian, de Unit. Eccles. p. 106-108. Cyprian. Epist. Plebi Uni- 
vers. xliii. p. 83. Firmil. Cyprian. Epist. Ixxv. p. 218, 225. In 
the second of the places here referred to, Cyprian speaks of one 
chair founded upon Peter hy the voice of the Lord, This the Latins 
of course understand to mean the see of Rome. But the whole 
t^nor both of Cyprian's language and of Cyprian's conduct de- 
monstrates, that, by this chair, he meant, not the see of Rome in 
particular, but the chair of the collective united episcopate in gene- 
ral. Compare Cyprian, de Unit. Eccles. p. 108: and little doubt, 
I think, will remain as to the true import of the one chair, 

f Chrysost. Homil. Ixix. in Petr. Apost. et Eliam. Proph. 
Oper. vol. i. p. 856. Serm. de Pentecost. Oper. vol. vi. p. 233. 



KESPEC^ING THE REFORMED CHURCH. 263 

< built: inasmuch as it is said, Other foundation can 
Mionian lay than what is laid, that is, Christ Jesus.'"" 

Thus untenable is the second of the two positions, 
upon which is built the papal claim to an universal 
supremacy. The primitive church no more recog- 
nised any such claim, than Holy Scripture: and, 
when it began to be propounded by Stephen of Rome 
in the third century, it was immediately, with the 
utmost contempt, opposed, as a silly innovation, by 
Cyprian and Firmilian. Lofty as were Cyprian^s 
ideas respecting the authority of the collective episco- 
pate, his actions, no less than his words, most abun- 
dantly showed, that he was little inclined to pros- 
trate himself before a pretended Roman successor of 
Peter. In the dispute concerning the rebaptiza- 
tion of heretics, Stephen and Cyprian took opposite 
parts: and neither of these resolute controversialists 
would yield, in the slightest degree, to his antago- 
nist. Regardless of the vain anger and the impotent 
excommunication of the intemperate Italian, Cyprian 
assembled a synod of the African bishops: and, in 
this synod, the independent prelate of Carthage, sup- 
ported by his own suffragans, decreed to adopt the 
opinion of the Asiatics. 

III. The Latin argument, deduced from the cele- 
brated passage which has now been brought under 
discussion, rests ultimately, as we have seen, upon 
two vital positions. Both those positions have been 
shewn to be untenable. The argument, therefore, 
deprived of its supporters, becomes a mere nullity. 

Hence, from what has been said, it is obvious, that 

* Athan. Unum esse Christ. Oral. Oper. p. 519, 520. Cyril. 
Catech. vi. p. 54. xi? p. 93. Hieron. Comment, in Matt. xvi. 18. 
lib. iii. Oper. vol. vi. p. 33. August. Expos, in Evan. Johan. 
Tract, cxxiv. Oper. vol. ix. p. 206. I have mentioned Cyril 
among those who hold Peter's confession to be the rock. Such 
strikes me as being most naturally his meaning. I will not, how- 
ever, be positive: he may mean the individual Peter. At any 
rate, he never once thought of interpreting the rock to denote 
Peter's imaginary successors in the see of Rome. 



264 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANiSM. 

we may safely pronounce, by right as well as by fact^ 
the perfect independence, both of the Anglican 
church and of every other national church, upon the 
bishop and see of Rome. 

1. Such being the case, even if we loholly agreed 
with the Roman church in our general doctrinal sys- 
tem, and even if there were no reason whatever why 
we might not be in perfect communion with her; 
still that circumstance would give her no sort oi au- 
thority over the church of England. 

According to the principle of Cyprian, that the 
episcopate is one indivisible hody^ and that the 
church catholic is spiritually an unit^ though con- 
sisting of many distinct visible portions: according 
to this principle of Cyprian, any union of the church 
of Rome and the church of England, even if such an 
union were doctrinally practicable, must needs be an 
union of equal concordance, not an union of rule on 
the one side, and of submission on the other.* 

The very fact indeed of the perfect mutual inde- 
pendence, though entire theological agreement, of the 
holy apostles, draws after it, by a plain necessity, the 
perfect mutual independence of all national churches. 
For, if the apostles themselves were mutually inde- 
pendent, no very intelligible reason can be assigned, 
why a church founded by James or by John should 
be subject to a church founded by Paul or by Peter. 

2. It may be said, that the church of England is a 
daughter of the church of Rome, and that as such she 
ought to be subject to her spiritual mother. 

If this theory were admissible, it might prove the 
schism and rebellion of the Anglican church, but it 
would not prove the schism and ji'ebellion of the 
Greek church, which yet, as we all know, is equally 
insisted upon by the uncanonically-encroaching La* 
tins. 

The theory, however, is palpably inadmissible. 

* See Cyprian de Unit. Eccles. p. 108, 



nESPE<3TlNa THE REFORMED CHURCH. 265 

By an easy figure of speech, we very naturally, in 
ecclesiastical matters, talk of the relation of mother 
and daughter: but it were grievously inconclusive 
reasoning to demonstrate, from a trope of rhetoric^ 
the literal subjugation of the allegorical daughter to 
the allegorical mother. The episcopal churches of 
Scotland and America are two hopeful daughters, 
whereof their mother, the church of England, has no 
reason to feel ashamed: yet it were passing strange, 
if the parent should, as a parent, claim any spiritual 
domination over her children. Happily, the mother 
and her daughters are in perfect communion : and 
long, for their mutual benefit and spiritual edification, 
may such continue to be the case! But their com» 
munion is an union of equal concordance, not an 
union of rule and submission: and, if there unhappily 
exist not the same communion between Rome and 
England, the fault, we venture to think, is in the mo- 
ther, not in the daughter. 

3, The Vatican, then, can claim no canonical su- 
periority to Lambeth, even on the supposition that 
there existed the most perfect doctrinal harmony be- 
tween the two churches. 

Some protestants, not quite so well informed as 
they might have been in the ancient genuine princi- 
ple of ecclesiastical union; that principle, which has 
been so happily revived in the case of the three epis- 
copal churches of England, Scotland, and America: 
some protestants, it seems, have unguardedly argued 
with the bishop of Aire, that their avowed indepen- 
dence of Rome is no schism, if the Latins be idola- 
ters. 

His lordship, whose acuteness will not suffer an 
opponent to make a slip with impunity, takes these 
paralogists at their word, and rapidly assails them on 
their ov/n most erroneous principle. 

You confess yourselves to be schismatics, says he, 
if we Latins be not idolaters : for upon our al- 
leged idolatry alone you avowedly rest vour argu- 

z 2 



266 DIFFICULTIES OF KOMANISM. 

ment. Now we Latins are 7iot idolaters. Therefore^ 
on your own principle, you are convicted schis- 
matics.* ^ 

Without entering, even in the slightest degree, in- 
to the question, whether idolatry be justly or unjustly 
imputed to the Church of Rome, I deny the very 
premises of this syllogism, on the ground which I 
have already explained quite sufficiently. We should 
cordially rejoice, if the doctrine of the church of 
Rome were in all points identical with the doctrine 
of the church of England: but we should not, on that 
account, the more perceive why the church of Eng- 
land ought to be subject to the church of Rome. 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. li. p. 301. 



ON AN UNION OF THE CHURCHES. 267 



CHAPTER IV. 



Respecting the Practicability of an Union of the 
Church of Rome and the Church of England. 



It is remarked by the bishop of Aire, that he 
might have copiously discussed the errors taught by 
protestants, respecting the number of the sacred 
books, the number of the sacraments, the communion 
under both kinds, the reservation of the consecrated 
host, and other matters of importance. On these 
topics, hov^ever, he is silent. I, therefore, shall be 
silent also: for my purpose has been, not so much to 
volunteer an attack, as to accept a challenge. But a 
projected plan of union, between the church of Rome 
and the church of England, v^ears no face of hostility: 
and it is refreshing, toward the close of a controver- 
sial composition, to hear the long-forgotten sounds of 
peace and amity. ^ 

I. The bishop's scheme of union, between the two 
churches, may be stated briefly, in manner following: 

^ Once defined, the principles of the Latin church 
* are irrevocable. She herself is immutably chained 
' by bonds, which at no future period can she ever 
^rend asunder. 't In regard, therefore, to doctrine^ 
any concession is plainly impossible. Yet, as the bi- 
shop undertakes to promise for her, she will cheerfully 
do every thing that in reason can be expected. Let the 
church of England adopt all the doctrines of the 

* Discuss. Amic. Lett, xviii. 
t Discuss, Amic. vol, ii, p, 324, 



268 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

church of Rome: and the church of Rome, on her 
part, will be disposed to make grand concessions on 
points of discipline. Such concessions her principle 
of IMMUTABILITY docs not forbid. Hence, in return 
for the sacrifice which we make on doctrinal points, 
she will freely concede to us communion under both 
kinds, the marriage of ecclesiastics, divine service in 
the vulgar tongue, all the ceremonies, all the vest- 
ments, all the sacerdotal ornaments, all the decora- 
tions of the altars and churches. By this arrange- 
ment, as the bishop justly observes, matters would 
seem precisely the same as before. The change would 
be absolutely invisible. It would be a simple altera- 
tion of our faith, which resides only in the intellec- 
tual part of our nature: w^hile the external worship 
would strike the eye, exactly as it did before the 
union was thus happily effected.^ 

* In England,' says the bishop, ^ the Reformation 
^deprived public worship of its ancient forms, and 

* stripped ecclesiastical ceremonies of all their majesty. 

< At one fell swoop, it abolished the merit of 
' satisfactory works, the doctrine of purgatory, pray- 
^ ers for the dead, invocation of the saints, honour 
' paid to relics and to images and to the cross. The 

< ritual, the liturgy, the mass with its sacrifice, the 
^real presence with transubstantiation, all were swept 
<away. Not a particle was saved; and England 

* wondered to find herself suddenly become calvin- 
<istic.n 

Until instructed by the bishop, I was not aware, 
that England had even yet discovered the Calvinism 
of her church: neither was I aware, that, in denying 
the doctrine of transubstantiation, we denied also the 
the doctrine of the real though spiritual presence of 
the Lord. This, however, is a matter of inferior 
moment, so far as the present question is concerned. 

The bishop of Aire vituperatively enumerates the 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 403. f Ibid. vol. i. p. 5. 



ON AN tJNION OF THE CHURCHES. 269 

ravages of the Reformation in England, and assures 
us that the principles of the Latin church are inirrm^ 
table and irrevocable. In order, therefore, to an 
union with the church of Rome, we must carefully, 
except in so far as we are indulged with respect to 
discipline, replace whatever the Reformation has 
abolished. Let the church of England, then, admit 
the merit of satisfactory works, inculcate a belief in 
purgatory, enjoin prayers for the dead, establish the 
invocation of the saints, adore with their due honour 
relics . and images and crosses, adopt into her liturgy 
what was erased at the time of the Reformation, and 
require of her children an unhesitating reception of 
the doctrine of transubstantiation with all its con- 
comitants: let the church of England pay this price 
for the procurement of an union with the church of 
Rome; and such an union will forthwith be accom- 
plished. If we like the terms propounded by the 
bishop'of Aire, nothing more is wanted than a prompt 
payment of the price. 

II. Sincerely do I wish, that a scheme of greater 
promise had been recommended by the excellent pre- 
late. The present, as marked out by himself, is as- 
suredly a mere theological chimera, 

1. We are called upon, it seems, to adopt impli- 
citly the ENTIRE creed and consequent practice of 
Rome: and, in return, we may entertain a hope of 
being indulged in various matters of discipline, the 
full possession of which privilege we already enjoy. 

Now, by such arrangement, ive obviously concede 
EVERY thing: and the only advantage, which we re- 
ceive from our concession, is the benefit of subjecting 
the bishops and clergy of the Anglican church to 
the spiritual domination of a foreign Italian bishop. 
Thus, even if the terms were unexceptionable, it is 
difficult to comprehend what particular advantage ive 
should derive from the arrangement. 

The bishop will probably state the benefit to b© 



270 DIPFICITLTIES OF ROMANISM. 

the accomplishment of union and the termination 
of schism. 

These, in themselves, may be advantages: but I 
perceive not, why their sole purchase must be un- 
conditional submission to an Italian prelate. Ac- 
cording to the principles of the early church w^hich 
held the episcopate to be one, the idea of commiLnion 
does not involve the idea oi subjection. Canterbury 
claims not to govern Rome: and it is by no means 
clear, why Rome should claim to govern Canterbury. 
If an union between the two churches be ever effected, 
it must be upon the basis of a perfect independent 
equality. 

2. But, in truth, the very terms, propounded by 
the bishop, are altogether inadmissible. Because 
the principles of the Latin church are pronounced to 
be IRREVOCABLE, WO Auglicans, without the slightest 
regard being paid to our principles, are required to 
adopt implicitly the entire cijped and practice of 
Rome. 

How, then, is such an adoption to be effected? 
Even to omit the singular unreasonableness of a pro- 
posal, that every doctrinal sacrifice shall be made on- 
one side exclusively; how are we to make this sacri- 
fice, unless we be first conscientiously satisfied as to 
its propriety? At present we are no/f convinced, that 
the entire creed of Rome is scriptural. On the con- 
trary, we hold it to be a mixture of truth and error. 
With these sentiments, can the bishop seriously wish 
us to adopt it? Can so good a man, as the exem- 
plary prelate of Aire, deliberately recommend to us 
the practice of gross deceptive hypocrisy? Certainly, 
if with our present doctrinal views we should take 
such a step, our dishonesty would reflect but small 
credit upon our ostensible conversion. Let the bishop 
by solid proof and sound argument convince us, that 
the entire creed of Rome is undoubted scriptural 
verity: and we shall require no lengthened exhorta- 
tion to an union with that church. But our union 



ON AN UNION OF THE CHURCHES. 271 

must be preceded by our conviction: and I feel as- 
sured, that the bishop himself would be dissatisfied 
with any union which should be differently circum- 
stanced. 

3. There is yet another difficulty, which his lord- 
ship, in the rapid zeal of a projector, seems to have 
entirely overlooked. 

' Every thing which has been done in the Angli- 
' can church since the time of Elizabeth,^ says the 
bishop, 'is radically null in principle; null to-day, 
^ null .to-morrow, null to the very end of time.^* 

If we ask the reason of this alarming nullity, the 
bishop refers us to the marriage of Scory and Barlow 
and Coverdale. The marriage of these prelates obli- 
terated their episcopal character. But from them our 
English orders are derived. Therefore, our English 
orders, springing from a nullity, are themselves 
radically null in principle, t 

The soundness of this extraordinary reasoning I 
have already had occasion to controvert: at present, 
I mention it only for the purpose of bringing it in 
juxtaposition with his lordship's plan of conceding 
the privilege of matrimony to the English ecclesias- 
tics, in case an union with Rome should ever be hap- 
pily effected. 

Now his argument and his proposal, when jointly 
considered, bring him, so far as I can judge, into a 
very singular dilemma. 

The marriage of bishops either does, or does not, 
obliterate their episcopal character. If it does; then 
the marriage of the clergy cannot be conceded with- 
out their virtual degradation: if it does not; then our 
English orders are perfectly valid, and the bishop is 
clearly mistaken in his remark, that every thing done 
in the Anglican church since the time of Elizabeth is 
radically null in principle. J 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 408. f Ibid. vol. i. p. 11. 

1 1 am not altogether devoid of apprehension, that the bishop 
of Aire, by his proposal to concede to the English ecclesiastics 



272 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

4. His lordship dwells largely on the alleged igno- 
rance of our Anglican reformers in regard to eccle- 

the privilege of matrimony, may have unwittingly incurred the 
grave charge of manifest heresy. 

By the sixth canon of the second Council of Lateran, all eccle- 
siastics, down to the rank of the subdiaconate inclusive, are pro- 
hibited from marrying: and this prohibition is made to rest, not 
upon a mere point of changeabU discipline, but upon the eternally 
tmckangeable ground of alleged immorality; for the marriage of 
ecclesiastics is affirmed to be an unworthy deed, and is thence 
asserted to be nothing better than chamhering and uncleanness. 
Concil. Lateran. secund. can. vi. Labb. Concil. Sacrosanct, vol. 
X. p. 1003. 

Now the second Council of Lateran is reckoned as the tenth 
ecumenical council. Hence, on the principle of the Roman 
church, it must assuredly be deemed infallible. Such being the 
case, the bishop of Aire has plainly reduced himself to the fol- 
lowing most unsatisfactory dilemma: — 

If he believe the decision of the second Council of Lateran to 
be infallibly true; then he purposes to confer upon the English 
clergy the unhallowed privilege of chambering and uncleanness: 
if he believe the marriage of ecclesiastics to be as free from im- 
morality as the marriage of laics; then, with a high hand, he im- 
pugns the infallibility of the second Council of Lateran. 

The bishop, in short, by his unlucky proposal, must be content 
to stand forth, either as the patron of chambering and unclean- 
ness, or as the heretical opponent of the tenth ecumenical coun- 
cil. 

For my own part, I see not how the church of Rome can ever 
decently concede to the clergy the privilege of matrimony, with- 
out first rescinding the sixth and seventh canons of the second 
Council of Lateran. But, if the canons of an ecumenical council 
be rescinded on the g-round that they have falsely declared the 
marriage of ecclesiastics to be mere chambering and uncleanness; 
it is difficult to conceive, how the infallibihty of the church can 
be ever afterward consistently maintained. A protestant can 
scarcely forbear smiling at the whimsical and multiphed difficul- 
ties, into which the ignis fatuus of ecclesiastical infallibility is 
perpetually conducting his Latin brethren. It meets them at 
every turn of the controversy: and it invariably leaves them 
floundering on one of those unseemly quagmires, which are scat- 
tered with such unhappy profusion over the whole patrimony of 
St. Peter. Perhaps there is not a more worthy man breathing 
than the bishop of Aire, or one who would more utterly abhor the 
very idea of immorality: and yet we see in what evil plight the 
chase of infallibility has left him. He proposes to grant to the 
Bnglish clergy, what the second Council of Lateran has infallibly 
pronounced to be chambering and uncleanness. 



ON AN UNION OP THE CHURCHES. 273 

siastical antiquity: and he contrasts it with the pro- 
found erudition of Bull and Pearson and Beveridge; 
< for whom/ as he truly remarks, ^ christian antiquity 
^ had no secrets/* 

Such is his statement: but he draws from it the 
very unexpected conclusion, that, rejecting the igno- 
rance of our reformers, we should forthwith renounce 
our articles and our homilies, and court a reconcilia- 
tion with the church of Rome. 

The bishop's conclusion surprised me not a little: 
and I was the rather surprised, because, from his pre- 
mises^ I should myself have been carried to a directly 
opposite result. 

Ridley and Latimer (I should have argued), pro- 
bably moreover Cranmer and Jewell, though they do 
not appear to have been exactly what we might call 
ignorant men^ were yet perhaps unequal in erudi- 
tion to Bull and Pearson and Beveridge. What then 
am I to think of the English reformation, whereof 
they may not unreasonably be deemed the fathers? 
They^ we will argue with the bishop of Aire, were 
simple men, who groped their way through darkness 
with what modicum of light they haply possessed, 
and who perhaps were more frequently in the wrong 
than in the right. But the matter wears quite a dif- 
ferent aspect, when such men as Bull and Pearson 
and Beveridge make their appearance. For them^ 
christian antiquity had no secrets: they penetrated 
into the very adytum of the temple: they explored 
its most recondite mysteries. Yet did these giants 
of erudition adopt and sanction what their more sim- 
ple predecessors had done so ignorantly and incau- 
tiously. They adorned and defended the church, 
which, the others had purified and reformed. Their 
superior information led them not to perceive that 
necessity of an union with Rome, which, according 
to the bishop of Aire, a deep knowledge of christian 

* Discuss. Amic. vol. iL p. 397, 398. 
Aa 



^74 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

antiquity must perforce inculcate. They lived and 
died faithful and devout rulers of the church of En- 
gland. Such being the case, what more satisfactory 
proof can a plain unlettered man have, that increase 
of knowledge does not teach the advantage of sub- 
mission to Rome, than the conduct of persons for 
whom confessedly christian antiquity had no secrets? 

Thus, through the medium oi facts, I should have 
inclined to argue from the bishop's premises: they 
bring his lordship, however, to a totally different 
conclusion. He infers from them the duty and bene- 
fit of a speedy submission to Rome. 

How, then, are we to dispose of Bishop Bull and 
his learned colleagues: for it is clear, that they 
grievously impede our journey to the Vatican? 

His lordship makes short work with Bishop Bull: 
and, from analogy, I conclude, that we must employ 
the same compendious process in the matter of Pear- 
son and Beveridge. 

For a laborious investigation of the doctrine of the 
antenicene fathers on the subject of the Holy Trinity, 
the praise of Bishop Bull is in all the churches. Now, 
the accurate acquaintance of that great prelate with 
the works of the early ecclesiastical writers ought, in 
the judgment of the bishop of Aire, to have brought 
him over to the church of Rome. But that most de- 
sirable event never did take place. Therefore it fol- 
lows, that Bishop Bull was far too sober and prudent 
a man to suffer his convictions to interfere with his 
interest. 

So speaks and so reasons the bishop of Aire in a 
composition specially addressed to the English laity.* 

* Qu'est-ce done qui le retlent? says the bishop of Aire re- 
specting his learned brother of St. David's. Quil'arrete? De- 
plorable foiblesse ! L'aveu de la verite tout entiere I'eiit expose 
a de trop grands sacrifices. Discuss. Amic. yol. i. p. 435. 

The bishop, as if by a simultaneous movement with his friends 
ift Eng-land, condescends to repeat the now ancient calumny of 



ON AN UNION OF THE CHURCHES. 275 

5. As the bishop lays the deep foundations of our 
English reform, in the profound ignorance of the re- 
formers themselves; so is he willing to ascribe its 
otherwise unaccountable permanence to the scarcely 
less profound ignorance of those birds of darkness, 
our modern Anglican clergy.* 

The solution of the problem is certainly more in- 
genious than flattering. Were we better informed, 
we should lose no time in undertaking a journey to 
Rome: being ill informed, we are content, in the 
bliss of unmingled ignorance, to stay at home. 

Every Galilean divine is not a bishop of Aire: 
surely then, in common equity, his lordship must not 
pronounce us Anglicans a generation of absolute theo- 
logical dunces, because every well-meaning clerk is 
not a Bull or a Pearson or a Beveridge. After all, 
so far as the church of Rome is concerned, perhaps it 
were wisest in the bishop to leave us as we are. He 
requests his laic correspondent to perplex us with 
shrewd questions from the fathers; but, on second 
thoughts, he is willing to spare us our embarrass- 
ment.! Now my own suspicion is, that, the more we 
read the old ecclesiastics, the less we shall be per- 
plexed by any shrewd questions. Whence it seems 
not unnaturally to follow, that the study of antiquity 
is adverse, rather than friendly, to the cause of the 
Latin church. Such, at least, unless we adopt the so- 
lution proposed by the bishop, seems to have been its 
effect upon Bull and upon Pearson, upon Hooker and 
upon Beveridge. 

]^Ir. Gibbon, that our English clergy sign the thirty-nine articles 
with a sigh or a smile. Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 400. 

My regret, that the same utterly unfounded calumny should 
have been re-echoed even by so estimable a man as Mr. Butler, 
is considerably diminished, when I recollect, that it has called 
forth the vindication of the present bishop of Chester, 

• Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 399 — 403, 409. 

f Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 8. 



276 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 



CHAPTER V. 

Hespecting the Bishop of Jiire^s Censure of the 
Reformation^ his Apology for the Inquisition^ 
and his Protest against Freedom of Religious 
Worship. 

With whatever reluctance, I must now prepare 
myself to attend upon the bishop of Aire in consider- 
ing his censure of the Reformation, his apology for 
the inquisition, and his protest against freedom of reli- 
gious worship. Yet the task, though unpleasant, 
will not be useless. We shall thence distinctly learn 
the true character of the church of Rome. Since 
the bishop of Aire, as a Latin ecclesiastic, does not 
blush to advocate principles the most revolting; what 
mu^t the system be, which can thus corrupt the mind 
even of a Trevern!* 

I. The bishop^s censure of the Reformation is 
built upon the manifold evils which are said to have 
resulted from it. His argument may be briefly stated 
in manner following: — 

Various religious wars, among which the bishop 
specially mentions that which ended in the liberation 
of Holland from the yoke of Spain; and various san- 
guinary persecutions, among which he specially enu- 
merates the massacre that occurred on the eve of St. 
Bartholomew: these wars and these persecutions would 
never have taken place, had they not been preceeded 
by the Reformation. For such miseries, therefore, 
the Reformation alone is answerable. The blood of 

\ • Discuss. Amic. Lett. xvui. 



THE BISHOP OP aire's PRINCIPLES. 277 

the protestants, who perished in the flames of a 
pseudo-martyrdom, be upon their own heads ! The 
blood both of protestants and of papists, which flowed 
in battle, be also on the heads of the protestants! In 
this matter, the enemies of the Reformation are 
clear. They have nothing wherewithal to reproach 
themselves. Had the protestants never opposed the 
church of Rome, not a finger would have been raised 
against them. Nothing, therefore, can be more evi- 
dent, than that the papists are perfectly blameless: 
nothing can be better established, than the exclusive 
guilt of the protestants. ^ 

From such a train of reasoning the bishop is brought 
to the triumphant conclusion, that the Reformation of 
the sixteenth century is an event which must ever be 
deplored and reprobated. 

^ It seems to me impossible,' says his lordship, 
^ that these observations on the political efiects of the 
' Reformation in Europe can do otherwise than in- 
^ spire every impartial man with a strong aversion 
^ from it. In its partisans, they must needs weaken 
' an attachment and an interest, which are solely pro- 
^ duced by the prejudices of education. They must 
^infalliby terminate in a hearty wish, that it may be 
^abandoned with all convenient celerity. 't 

We may certainly pronounce with perfect truth, 
that the various evils, enumerated by the bishop, 
would never have occurred, had not a reformation 
preceded ih^va: but, whether it be altogether just to 
make this reformation answerable for them, is a mat- 
ter by no means equally self-evident. His lordship^s 
argument is one of those ill-constructed machines, 
which are calculated to do quite as much mischief 
among friends as among enemies: and, if the Reforma- 
tion is to be condemned on the principle advocated 



* Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 411—416. 

t Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 417, 418. 

Aa 2 



278 BIPPICtJLTIES OF HOMANISM. 

by the bishop, I tremble for the security of Christian- 
ity itself. 

Bad as the Reformation may be, it at least, in its 
effects, is not much worse than Christianity. The ar- 
gument by which the bishop of Aire demonstrates 
that we ought to detest and abhor the Reformation, 
will no less demonstrate, that Christianity ought to be 
visited with an equal share of our virtuous hatred. 
Did not the very founder of this religion give a true 
account of it, when he declared, that he came to send 
upon the earth, not peace, but a sword ? Who, in all 
just reason, were to blame ? The persecuting Romans ? 
or the persecuted christians ? If the latter had not 
fantastically abandoned the religion of their forefa- 
thers; they would never, by the former, have been 
in the slightest degree molested. What bloodshed, 
w^hat murders, what tortures, what imprisonments, 
what tumults did Christianity introduce! Most accu- 
rately were its early votaries stigmatized by the judi- 
cious and discerning Hebrews, as the mischief-loving 
persons who turned the world upside down! Assur- 
edly, the fruitful parent of all these evils was Chris- 
tianity: for, had Christianity never existed, neither 
would the evils, its consequents, have existed; inas- 
much as the cause must always precede the effect. 
^To me, therefore;^ an ancient pagan would argue, 
in the words and on the principle of the bishop of 
Aire: * to me it seems impossible, that these observa^ 
« tions on the effects of Christianity can do other- 
' wise than inspire every impartial man with a 
* strong aversion from it. In its partisans, they must 
' needs weaken an attachment and an interest, which 
^ are solely produced by the prejudices of education 
^ or by the fanaticism of recent conversion. They 
^ must infallibly terminate in a hearty wish, that it 
< may be abandoned with all convenient celerity:' 

Thus, with materials furnished by the bishop of 
Aire, might Julian in the fourth century have argued 



THE BISHOP OP aire's PRINCIPLES. 279 

against Christianity: and, so far as I am able to judge, 
if the reasoning of the Gallican prelate against the 
Reformation be conclusive, the supposed analogical 
reasoning of the Roman emperor against Christianity 
cannot be inconclusive. 

II. As the bishop censures the Reformation, 
because its bitter fruits were massacres and bloodshed 
and war and torture and persecution: so, with strict 
consistency, he vindicates and apologizes for the 
Inquisition. 
. < Some persons,^ says he, ^accuse it (and would to 

* heaven there was less ground for the accusation!) 
< of having pushed rigour even to injustice and cru- 

* elty. But it is not reasonable to confound the In- 

* quisition with its abuse. We must not attribute to 

* the Inquisition itself those crimes, for which its 
^ officers alone are culpable. It is at present generally 

* agreed, that the number of innocent victims has been 

* greatly exaggerated. After all, Spain, though she 
' may reproach herself with all these cruel and unjust 

* persecutions, has no great reason to regret the lot of 

* other states. Religious wars, produced by the Re- 

* formation, have deluged them with blood. But 

* Spain, blessed with the Inquisition, has been happily 
^ exempt. ^^ 

1. The crimes, which have been perpetrated hy 
the Inquisition, the bishop would charge, not upon 
the Inquisition itself, but upon its officers. 

If those officers, who (according to his lordship) 
alone are culpable, had ever been punished as they 
deserved; the defence of the Inquisition, avowedly 
set up on this special plea, might possibly, to some 
certain extent at least, have availed. But, as to any 
penalties being ever suffered by those hardened mis- 
creants, or even as to any censure being officially 
passed upon them by their ecclesiastical superiors, the 
bishop is altogether silent. I will not venture to say, 

♦ Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 417. 



280 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM* 

that inquisitors have never been animadverted uponj 
but I can safely affirm, that I never heard of such an 
occurrence; and since this precise matter is the very 
thing wanted to complete the bishop's argument, 
from his ominous silence I more than suspect that he 
is as little acquainted with any such occurrence as 
myself. Hence, even upon his own principle, unless 
he can show that the culpable officers of the Inquisi- 
tion have invariat)ly been brought to condign punish- 
ment, we must assuredly ascribe to the Inquisition 
itself every crime which has been perpetrated by its 
abandoned instruments. If its tools are suffered to 
escape with impunity, the Inquisition makes their 
abominations its own, and henceforth incurs the 
whole weight of a most awful responsibility. 

2. Equally unavailing is the palliation attempted 
by the bishop, on the ground that the number of in- 
nocent victims has been greatly exaggerated. 

In the very terms of this plea there isadisingenuous- 
ness, which is unworthy of such a man as the prelate of 
Aire. The number q/innocent victims, we are told, 
has been great It/ exaggerated: but the bishop is not 
careful to define what he means by iimocent victims. 
I may be mistaken: but I have always understood, 
that the special object of the Inquisition was to take 
cognizance of what the Latin church pronounces to 
be heresy. Hence, if the bishop be a true son of that 
church, no person, whom she determines to be a 
heretic, can be deemed by his lordship an innocent 
victim; and, consequently, the fact, that, within the 
space of thirty years J the Inquisition destroyed, by 
various modes of torture, one hundred and fifty 
thousand reputed heretics, may be perfectly consis- 
tent with the somewhat fallacious allegation that the 
number of iNifiocB'NT victims has been greatly ex- 
aggerated.* The true question is: What are we to 

* Fop this appalling fact, Verger, who knew the Inquisition 
well, is my voucher; See Fran. Jun. et Tilen. ad Bellarmin. 
de Pont. Rom. lib. iii. c.7.apudMedi Oper. p. 504. 



THE BISHOP OP AIRBUS PRINCIPLES. 281 

understand by the word innocent, as employed by 
the bishop? If by innocent victims his lordship 
means reputed heretics^ that is to sdty, persons deem- 
ed heretics by the church of Rome: then there has 
certainly been no exaggeration. If, on the contrary, 
by innocent victims he means some few unlucky 
papists who in an evil hour have been mistaken 
for damnable heretics : then he ought to have ex- 
plained himself accordingly, that so the purport of 
his allegation might be clearly and distinctly under- 
stood. His complete silence on this most important 
point compels me, however reluctantly, to tax him 
with palpable disingenuousness. 

8. There is, however, yet another aspect under 
which the bishop's attempted apology for the Inqui- 
sition is altogether unsuccessful. 

Since the apology proceeds on the ground, that the 
slaughter of innocent vidimus is alone indefensible; 
it follows, by inevitable implication, that the Inquisi- 
tion is perfectly justified in the slaughter of guilty 
victims. 

Now the GUILTY victims are those, whom the 
Latin church, on full conviction of their guilt, has 
pronounced to be heretics. In the slaughter of such 
persons, therefore, according to the necessary tenor 
of the bishop's argument, the Inquisition is fully jus- 
tified. 

But tfcis is the very point, on which I have the 
privilege or the misfortune to difier from his lordship. 

Many have been slaughtered by the Inquisition, 
whom the bishop deems heretics, and whom /deem 
good christians: some also have been slaughtered by 
the Inquisition, whom both the bishop and myself 
deem heretics. But yet, according to my own view 
of the question, every person, slaughtered by the 
Inquisition, was, most certainly, so far as the judicial 
right of that pandemonium is concerned, an inno- 
cent victim. Man, for his religious opinions, is 
answerable to God alone. Those opinions may be 



282 DIFFICULTIES or ROMANISM. 

very erroneous and very detestable: the individual 
may be a grievous spiritual sinner before his Creator; 
and, in the hour of doom an awful retribution may 
await him. But where has the Lord of heaven and 
of earth conferred upon a pope or upon an inquisitor 
the right to torture and to destroy that man? I 
greatly mistake, if the charter of any such judicial 
right can be found under the christian dispensation: 
Yet, unless this charter can be produced, every 
death occasioned by the Inquisition, no matter what 
the religious principles of the individual may have 
been, is clearly a murder.* 

* I sincerely pity the situation of the bishop of Aire and of 
every other humane and well-disposed member of the church of 
Rome. All such persons are inevitably pledged, either to vindi- 
cate and to practise persecution even to the last dreadful extremity, 
or to deny the cherished infallibility of their immutable church. 

Respecting the bounden duty of all the faithful to annoy and 
distress and injure and persecute and slaughter those unfortunate 
rehgionists whom the Latin church has pronounced to be heretics, 
the twenty-seventh canon of the third Council of Lateran, held at 
Rome under Pope Alexander the third in the year 1179, and re- 
puted by all devout Romanists to be the eleventh general coun- 
cil, is full and peremptory and explicit and unambiguous. 

* As the blessed Leo says, although ecclesiastical discipline, 

* content with sacerdotal judgment, does not exact bloody ven- 
5 geance; yet is it assisted by the constitution of catholic princes, 

* in order tliat men, while they fear that corporal punishment may 

* be inflicted upon them, may often seek a salutary remedy. On 
*this account, because in Gascony, Albi, in the parts of Tou- 

* louse, and in other regions, the accursed perverseness of here- 

* tics, variously denominated Cathari or Patarenes or Publicans^ 

* or distinguished by sundry other names, has so prevailed; that 

* now they no longer exercise their wickedness in private, but 

* publicly manifest their error and seduce into their communion 
*the simple and infirm: we therefore subject to a curse both 

* themselves and their defenders and their harbourers; and, under 

* a curse, we prohibit all persons from admitting them into their 

* houses, or receiving them upon. their lands, or cherishing them, 

* or exercising any trade with them. Moreover we enjoin all the 

* faithful, for the remission of their sins, that they manfully op- 

* pose themselves to such calamities, and that they defend the 

* christian people against them by arms. And let their goods be 

* confiscated, and let it be freely permitted to princes to reduce 
^ meii of such a stamp to slavery.-— We likewise, from the mercy 



THE BISHOP OP aire's PRINCIPLES. 283 

III. The bishop having thus censured the Reforma- 
tion and vindicated the Inquisition, nothing more was 
wanting to the rotundity of his system than that he 
should bear his testimony against freedom of reli- 
gious worship. Accordingly, against this crying 
abomination of the Anglican church his lordship has 
raised his voice like a trumpet, 

1. In her own bosom, we are assured, the too 

^ of God, and relying" upon the authority of the blessed apostles 

* Peter and Paul, relax two years of enjoined penance to those 

* faitliful christians, who, by the counsel of the bishops or other 

* prelates, shall take up arms against them to subdue them by fight- 

* ing against them; or, if such christians shall spend a longer time 

* in the business, we leave it to the discretion of the bishops to grant 

* them a longer indulgence. As for those, who shall fail to obey 
*the admonition of the bishop to this effect, we inhibit them from 

* a participation of the body and blood of the Lord. Meanwhile, 
' those, who in the ardour of faith shall undertake the just labour 
' of subduing them, we receive into the protection of the church; 

* granting to them the same privileges of security in property and 

* in person, as are granted to those who visit the holy sepulchre.* 
— Labb. Concil. Sacrosan. vol. x. p. 1522, 1523. 

If a Romanist hold the infallibihty of his church, then he is com- 
pelled by this infallible decree of an infallible council, duly rati- 
fied by Uie pope himself, both to vindicate persecution in theory, 
and zealously to promote it in practice: if he abhor persecution 
in theory, and if he refuse to promote it in practice ; then he is 
compelled, by this very abhorrence and refusal, to pronounce an 
infalhble council to have grievously erred, and thence of neces- 
sity to deny the infallibility of his church. 

From this dilemma I see no possibility of evasion: and, accord- 
ingly, no evasion is attempted. 

* When a dogmatical point is to be determined,' says the late 
Bishop Walmesley, * the cathohc church speaks but once; and her 
' decree is irrevocable. The solemn determinations of general coun- 
* cils have remained unalterable and will ever be so. — Gen. Hist, of 
the Church, chap. ix. p. 224. Dublin, 1812. 

* The principles of the catholic church, once defined,' says the 
bishop of Aire, * are irrevocable. She herself is immutably chained 
' by bonds, which at no future period can she ever rend asunder.' — 
Discuss. Amic. vol. ii. p. 324. 

Thus speak two modern Latin ecclesiastics: and from their 
statement it is manifest that the persecuting twenty-seventh canon 
of the third Council of Lateran, itself the reputed eleventh fi^e?ie- 
ra/ council, is lanfiTocABij: and latatuxABi^E hoth irow ana poe 



284 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

tolerant church of England madly cherishes and 
fondly carries the viperine principle of her own de- 
struction. The adder, which she thus warms only 
for the purpose of stinging herself to death, is free" 
dom of religious worship: and the mode, by which 
tliis baleful and impolitic principle operates to her 
dissolution, is in the uncontrolled secession of the 
dissenters and above all in the rapid accumulation of 
the methodists. 

What the bishop censures in the church of Eng- 
land is a principle which the church of Rome has 
ever abhorred. The very fact of his censure demon- 
strates, by a necessary implication, that any such 
censure of the Latin church would be wholly unme- 
rited: for, if the existing principle of the Latin 
church were the same as the existing principle of the 
English church, it is clear, that his lordship's censure 
could not have been directed against the latter exclu- 
sively. When the bishop declares, that the English 
church carries in her bosom a principle which must 
finally produce her destruction; he in eflFect declares, 
that the Latin church is far too wise and too politic 
to entertain and to harbour such a viper: for it were 
plain fatuity to censure the practice of the English 
church, if it were equally the practice of the Latin 
ohurch. But the principle in question is freedom 
OP RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. Therefore, in the judgment 
of the bishop of Aire, freedom of religious wor- 
ship is a foolish and impolitic principle, which no 
wise church would tolerate as she values her own 
safety, and which accordingly the sagacious church of 
Rome does not tolerate. 

2. The future destiny of the church of England 
neither the bishop nor myself can with certainty 
prognosticate. 

To the Catholic church in general Christ has pro- 
mised perpetuity; but, in the lapse of ages, any par- 
ticular church may perish. Should the church of 
England fall by the fickleness and defection of her 



THE BISHOP OP aire's PRINCIFLES. 285 

children, the principle, which desjtroys, will at least 
not disgrace her : should the church of Rome be 
established upon her ruins; those, who have indirect- 
ly contributed to her destruction, will have snnall rea- 
son to congratulate themselves. A church, which is 
censured for granting freedom of religious worship, 
were ill exchanged for the church which censures 
her impolicy. 

3. Some modern protestants are wont very inno- 
cently to maintain, that the church of Rome is now 
quite different from her ancient self. But when did 
we hear a Zra/^/^ profess that his church had changed? 
Never. 

In proof of the immutability of the Roman church, 
I cite not the wild and furious declamation of some 
vulgar fanatic. I turn to a scholar and a gentleman: 
I adduce the present bishop of Aire. 

' The principles of the Latin church, once defined, 
' are irrevocable. She herself is immutably chained 
' by bonds, which at no future period can she ever 
* rend asunder.'* 

Thus speaks a very estimable Roman ecclesiastic: 
and his meaning is fully explained by the line of argu- 
ment which he himself has chosen. He calls upon us 
to unite, or rather to submit, to his church: and, as 
the consistent advocate of that church, he vindicates 
idolatry, stigmatizes the Reformation, patronises the 
eve of St. Bartholomew, lays the blame of perse- 
cution upon the persecuted, palliates the Inquisition, 
and censures freedom of religious worship. 

The English laity are no longer ignorant of the 
price of an union with Rome. Should the terms 
please them, nothing remains save to strike the bar- 
gain. 

4. If a reconciliation can thus happily be effected, 
the bishop of Aire promises, that all the prelates of 
the alone true catholic church will spring from their 

* Discuss. Amic. |^1. ii. p. 324. 
B B 



286 DIFFICULTIES OF ROMANISM. 

chairs of office, and request the parochial clergy of 
England to take their places, t 

Certainly, to us plain rural divines, whose merit 
has hitherto been overlooked by undiscerning pa- 
trons, and whose humility has never been endangered 
by the flattering offer of ecclesiastical dignities, such 
a proposal is no ordinary temptation: yet, if the epis- 
copate can only be obtained by an union with a pro- 
fessedly intolerant church, I trust we shall all have 
sufficient virtue to pronounce the Nolo episcoparL 

Much as we regret the secession of the dissenters, 
and the half-separation of the methodists, and fully 
agreeing with the bishop that such unhappy divisions 
have a direct tendency to promote the interest of the 
church of Rome, still we cannot conscientiously pur- 
chase the dignities which are thus freely offered to us. 
Since the price is the adoption of the whole Latin 
creed on the one hand, and the entire extinction of all 
freedom of religious worship on the other hand: 
such a price, for our scanty means, we find to be far 
too costly. 

f Si les graces, les honneurs, manquoient encore a son em- 
pressement de vous en revetir, nos eveques sauroient bien, a 
I'exemple de leurs anciens predecesseurs, descendre de leurs 
sieges et vous presser d'y monter a leur place. Epit. Dedic. au 
Clerge. p. 8, 9. 



CONCLUSION. 287 



CHAPTER VI. 

Conclusion. 

To follow the example of the bishop of Aire, in 
giving a recapitulation of what has been said, does 
not appear to me to be necessary. The plan, in gene- 
ral, is an excellent one: and I have rarely seen it bet- 
ter executed than by his lordship. But, in my own 
particular case at present, I deem it superfluous. If 
my statement of facts and authorities fail of leaving a 
distinct impression upon the mind, no recapitulation 
will render it more luminous. 

I have now met the bishop Of Aii*e on ground se- 
lected by himself. With what success I have met 
him, let others decide. In bidding farewell to my 
learned and respectable opponent, he cannot be of- 
fended, if I express a hearty wish, by way of further- 
ing his projected union, that his church may more 
and more resemble that portrait of it, which at the 
close of the second century was drawn from the life 
by the eloquent and gifted Tertullian. 

' Happy, thrice-happy, church ! To thee, the apostles 
' with their own blood, profusely communicated their 
' whole doctrine. There Peter was assimilated to the 
' passion of his Lord: there Paul was crowned by the 
^ evasion of John: there John himself, after sufiering 
' no ill from the boiling cauldron, was banished to 
*Patmos. What learned she; what taught she: 
^ when, symbolizing also with the African churches, 
* she acknowledged one God the Creator of the uni- 
^ verse, and Jesus Christ the Son of God the Creator 



288 DIFFICULTIES OP ROMANISM. 

^ born from the Virgin Mary, and the future appoint- 
^ed resurrection of the flesh ? She mingles the law 
^ and the prophets with the gospels and the apostolic 
^ letters: whence she drinks out that faith, which she 
^ so eminently illustrates. She signs with water: she 
^ clothes with the Holy Spirit: she feeds with the 
^Eucharist: she exhorts to martyrdom: she receives 

* no one in opposition to the institutes, which Christ 
' once delivered to his church. Still do the very 

* chairs of the apostles remain in their own places: 
^ still are their authentic letters recited, which sound 
^ forth their very tones, and which faithfully exhibit 
^ their very countenances. If thou art in Achaia, 

* thou hast Corinth: if, in Macedon; thou hast Philippi 
^and Thessalonica. If thou journeyest into Asia; 
^ thou hast Ephesus: if Italy be thy residence; thou 
^ hast Rome.* 

* Tertull. de Prsescript. adv. Haer. § xlv. p. 108, 109. 



( 2S9 ) 



APPENDIX. 

RESPECTIxN'G THE AUTHENTIC LETTERS OF THE APOS- 
TLES MENTIONED BY TERTULLIAN. 

It has been disputed, whether the ifisde autheiiticee 
literde^ mentioned by Tertullian in his treatise on Pre- 
scriptions, were the autographs of the apostles^ or only 
accurate transcripts of them. ^ 

From his expression, Fercurre ecclesias atostolicas^ 
when viewed in connexion with the subsequent context 
and with the avowed tenor of his argument, we may, I 
think, collect, that he speaks of the afiostolic auto- 
graphs, 

I. Of this opinion, I draw out the proof, in manner 
following: — 

The passage is introduced with the supposed case of 
a person, who, for his soul's health, is laudably curious 
to ascertain sound christian doctrine, ^ge Jam qui 
voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuse. 
Now the advice, which Tertullian gives to such a per- 
son, is, that he should resort to the apostolic churches, 
in which the authentic letters of the apostles are still 
recited: and these apostolic churches are evidently 

'' TertuU. de Prsescript. adv. Hser. § xir. p. 108, 109. See 
above, book ii, chap. 3, § n. 2. note. 
Bb2 



290 APPENDIX. 

churches founded by the apostles themselves, as con- 
tra-distinguished from minor clPirches founded only 
by their successors; for he immediately afterward ex- 
plains himself by enumerating the churches of Corinth, 
Philippi, Thessalonica, EpUesus, and Rome. But of 
necessity this advice implies, that the inquirer after 
sound doctrine would find in these apostolic churches 
what he would not find in any other inferior churches: 
and the matters, which he would find in these apos- 
tolic churches for the settling of his faith, are dis- 
tinctly specified to be the very authentic letters of the 
apostles; ifisde authenticse literae eorum. 

What then must we consistently understand by these 
verxj authentic letters of the ajiostles? 

If we understand by them accurate transcripts of the 
f.riginal autographs^ we shall be reduced, by the tenor 
of Tertullian's argument, to the manifest absurdity of 
supposing, that, at the latter end of the second cen- 
tury, no churches possessed transcripts of the original 
autographs, save those apostolic churches to which 
the letters were directly addressed: for it is clear that 
Tertullian would never have thought of sending his 
inquirer specially and exclusively to the apostolic 
churches, if the very same satisfactory information 
might have been gained from any other inferior church. 
Hence, the bare reason of the thing makes it evident, 
that the ipsse authenticse literee could not have been 
mere accurate transcripts of the original autographs. 
But, if they were not transcripts^ they must have been 
the autographs themselves, 

1. Accordingly, this conclusion perfectly agrees 
both with the whole context and with the evidently 
necessary tenor of Tertullian's argument. 



APPENDIX. 291 

The learned father sends a curious inquirer after 
doctrinal truth to the apostolic churches, rather than 
to any other churches which were not immediately 
founded by the apostles themselves. Why does he 
thus send him to the former, rather than to the latter? 
Because, in the apostolic churhes, he might satisfy 
his curiosity by an actual inspection of the identical 
autographs of the apostles: whereas, in other churches 
not founded by the apostles, though he might meet 
with numerous transcripts made from these auto- 
graphs, he would peradventure be disposed to ques- 
tion their strict accuracy. The various Achaian 
churches, for instance, would have transcripts of the 
two epistles to the Corinthians: but the autographs 
would be deposited with the apostolic church of Co- 
rinth. In a similar manner, the several churches of 
Macedon and proconsular Asia and Italy would have 
transcripts of the several epistles to the Philippians and 
Thessalonians and Ephesians and Romans: but the auto- 
graphs would be deposited with the apostolic churches 
of Philippi and Thessalonica and Ephesus and Rome. 
Hence says Tertullian to his inquirer, if you are in Ma- 
cedon, you may resort to Philippi and Thessalonica; if 
in Italy, to Rome ; if in Achaia, to Corinth ; if in pro- 
consular Asia, to Ephesus: for, in each of these apos- 
tolic churche^ a privilege which churches not found- 
ed by the apostles are unable to claim, you will find the 
identical authentic letters, that is to say (as the sense 
imperiously requires), the identical autographs of the 
apostles themselves. 

2. The present conclusion is confirmed, if it need 
any confirmation, by a subsequent phrase of Tertul- 



292 APPENDIX. 

lian, which occurs in the course of the same general 
passage. 

In his character of a catholic as opposed to all inno- 
vating heretics, he speaks of possessing, from the very- 
authors, the firm originals. Habeo origines Jlrmas ab 
ifisis autoribus. Now, when both the argument and 
the entire context are considered, it is hard to say 
what he can mean by these Jirm originals from the 
authors themselves^ if he do not mean the afiostolic auto- 
grafihs, 

II. The existence of the apostolic autographs, in the 
time of TertuUian, draws after it a very important 
philological consequence: namely, that the apostolic 
letters were originally written in Greek. 

TertuUian repeatedly intimates, that St. Paul em- 
ployed the Greek language in the composition of his 
epistles.* Now, this intimation might, in the abstract, 
be disputed: but, if the autographs of the apostles 
were in his time still preserved in the apostolic 
churches, any error on the part of such a man as Ter- 
tuUian, in regard to the language of these autographs, 
seems well nigh impossible. For a mere mechanical 
inspection of the autographs would verify their lan- 
guage: and even if TertuUian had carelessly hazarded 
an inaccurate assertion in consequence of his never 
having seen the autographs himself h^^ust forthwith 
have learned his mistake from some one of the many 
persons who had inspected them ; and, in that case, he 
would doubtless have corrected it. Or, at any rate, if 
he had neglected to make a formal retractation, we may 
be morally sure, that some other writer would have ex- 

* TertuU. de Monog. § viii. p. 576, § xii. p. 580, Tertull. adv. 
Marcion. lib. v. § 33. p. 322. 



APPENDIX. 293 

posed his singular mistake: inasmuch as the auto- 
graphs could not have existed to the end of the second 
century in those apostolic churches to which there 
was evidently a continual resort, without at the same 
time their particular language being known almost 
universally. 

Hence, if I have proved, that the ifisae authenticae 
literds^ which a curious inquirer at the end of the se- 
cond, century could find no where save in the apostolic 
churches alone^ must thence inevitably mean the auto- 
graphs of the afiostles: I have also proved, through the 
joint medium of that circumstance and the positive 
evidence of Tertullian, that the apostolic epistles were 
originally written in Greek. 

III. I subjoin the Latin original, that the reader may 
form a better judgment respecting the propriety of the 
foregoing remarks. 

Age jam qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in 
negotio salutis tu^e, percurre ecclesias apostolicas, 
apud quas ips3e adhuc cathedra apostolorum suis io- 
cis prxsidentur, apud quas ips^e authenticse literse 
eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et reprsesentantes 
faciem uniuscujusqe. Proxima est tibi Achaia? Habes 
Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Phi- 
lippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes in Asiam 
tendere, habes Ephesum, Si autem Italiae adjaces, 
habes Romam, unde nobis quoque autoritas prsgsto est. 



THB^ END, 



x^ 











\> ^ ^ ^ « /- > 



, « ^/^ - . X ^ 




^, '"'^ WlF^' " -" = "S- ^A^ ^ " ' Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

^r %.li^,^^^ > \v* -^ ^ Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 

^O ^^ , ^* o^'^' "^ ' Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

^'^% ^v. ^'^IW/I'^^ "^ PreservationTechnologies 

jlp^ -■ '^[^, ^^\V ^ ^W^^/^^ '^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

^^^ ~ ci ^ - '^^^~Z^^<^ ^ ^ ^ Thomson Park Drive 

(AXy * c^ ^ - vP^''']f^ ~ CranberryTownship, PA 16066 

^^ * oV <'■ \%i:!^s.^ ' ^724) 779-211 1 



), PA 1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 319 076 1 









'VV' 



